Jump to content
Cron

Bran Truly Was The Best Possible Choice To Rule

Recommended Posts

On 5/20/2019 at 1:23 AM, SansaJonRule said:

He knows the entire history of Westeros. He knows every mistake that was made and the repercussions of them. That makes him uniquely qualified not to repeat them. Plus, he doesn't want power, and his lack of emotion means he will not make emotional decisions. The problem with all our world's governments is they are run by humans and humans are subject to corruption. Someone who doesn't "want" anymore has no basis for corruption. He may not be appealing, but that doesn't mean he won't make a good king.

Great, great points.

And I'd love to see Queen Meera by his side in the sequel.  Whatever happened to her, anyway???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like all the problems associated to Ultron or A Space Odyssey 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cron said:
On 5/20/2019 at 12:23 AM, SansaJonRule said:

He knows the entire history of Westeros. He knows every mistake that was made and the repercussions of them. That makes him uniquely qualified not to repeat them. Plus, he doesn't want power, and his lack of emotion means he will not make emotional decisions. The problem with all our world's governments is they are run by humans and humans are subject to corruption. Someone who doesn't "want" anymore has no basis for corruption. He may not be appealing, but that doesn't mean he won't make a good king.

Great, great points.

And I'd love to see Queen Meera by his side in the sequel.  Whatever happened to her, anyway???

Once again, why should anyone believe that Bran is an omniscient being that can see all of history? There wasn't a single justifiable reason for him even to be at that council, much less be selected as king.

And both Tyrion and Varys' final plotlines involved them betraying Daenerys (part of the reason for her burning of King's Landing!) in favor of Jon because he would be a much better ruler, only for Tyrion to not even mention Jon as a candidate to the council.

Bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

That could just be the 3ER talking in a general sense, not Bloodraven personally.  The 3ER definitely predates Bloodraven.  The birthmark and eye I write off as the show deciding not to alter Sydow's appearance.

Except that he clearly talks about roots growing through him. 

14 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Being "unloved" wasn't the issue that made here less 'fit'.

 

The Targaryens were always 'foreign invaders'.  Dany was raised in Essos and returned at the head of 2 armies comprised of Essosi.  Dany's 'revolutionary rhetoric' would have alienated most of the Westerosi nobility.  As would (and did) her hardline stance re. bending the knee.

Daenery's unpopularity in Westeros was part of the reason Varys turned against her in favor of Jon. It kinda had to be since she had done literally nothing else that would make her worse in comparison. 

There would be no Seven Kingdoms without the Targaryens. They were apart from the general population but this idea that the founding and ruling dynasty of Westeros for centuries were always considered foreign invaders is nonsense. Daenerys never offered any revolutionary rhetoric to the nobility that we're aware of let alone put it into practice. You're doing this thing where instead of looking at what was actually offered in the show you're trying to fill in the gaps to make sense of it. You're welcome to do that but you can't offer it as a defense of what was actually put on screen. It could've made sense for Daenerys to become unpopular through trying to implement radical reforms, But the show never did that. It just treats Queen Cersei like a legitimate monarch who could actually rally support against the last surviving Targaryen with her allies, powerful armies, and three dragons. It's laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Bran Truly Was The Best Possible Choice To Rule" -

Yeah right. It's like - Google would be great president because it knows everything...

And his first decision was an act of nepotism and fragmentation of the realm he is a protector of.

Also, why would other Lords accept him after he let the North secede ?

Edited by Giskard Reventlov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chris is my name said:

Once again, why should anyone believe that Bran is an omniscient being that can see all of history? There wasn't a single justifiable reason for him even to be at that council, much less be selected as king.

All the Starks showed up.  As did all of the Arryns and all of the Greyjoys.  ;)

I just assumed that Bran insisted on accompanying Sansa when she went to KL. 

 

4 hours ago, Chris is my name said:

And both Tyrion and Varys' final plotlines involved them betraying Daenerys (part of the reason for her burning of King's Landing!) in favor of Jon because he would be a much better ruler, only for Tyrion to not even mention Jon as a candidate to the council.

There was no way Tyrion could have suggested Jon.  Grey Worm would not have accepted that.  Doubtful that Yara would have either.   Jon was about a poor a candidate at that point as Tyrion, for similar reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only successful leadership role Jon ever had was with some of the wildings and even that, IIRC, required the backing of Stannis

The knights watch killed him in mutiny 

The battle of the bastards was a disaster except for the knights of the Vale

He almost immediately gave up being king of the north

Hiding the defenseless in the crypts from an enemy that raises the dead

Attempting to stand off against an undead dragon

Arya bailed out the entire lack of plan at winterfell

He had to resort to killing his own men in Kings Landing

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

According to the other thread? 

Wtf, he saw that and deemed it acceptable?

The myth of Horn of Brandon or whatever Mance was looking for became the Big Mouth of Bran. Without him opening his trap, no broken wall. 

But yeah, if you think someone coldblooded enough to orchestrate that mash up that was Dany going North, dragons and all, to end the NK, and to thin out her armies, create dissension and intrigue, all the way down to 'bitch, say no more, I'm here' is an ideal ruler?

Machiavelli would shed a tear.

Edited by It_spelt_Magalhaes
Wasn't finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Techmaester said:

I don't think anyone knows enough about Bran to comment on who or what he is at this point and certainly not make him a ruler. 

Certainly we the viewers no very little about Bran and his abilities, and virtually nothing about his thought processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one was fit enough to rule.  No one had the army left to impose their will on the rest of the realm.  As others have noted it would have made far more sense for the seven kingdoms to have been broken especially with the capital in ruins  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RFL said:

No one was fit enough to rule.  No one had the army left to impose their will on the rest of the realm.  As others have noted it would have made far more sense for the seven kingdoms to have been broken especially with the capital in ruins  

Breakup was the only logical conclusion and it not being written into the script shows the writers just had a problem with dragon queen. They wanted to create what was considered a "good ending" in her death(to them). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

 

There would be no Seven Kingdoms without the Targaryens.

Actually, there would be 7 Kingdoms.  7 independent Kingdoms.

Or maybe 6.  The Riverlands was under the thumb of the Iron Islands when Aegon arrived.

 

7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

They were apart from the general population but this idea that the founding and ruling dynasty of Westeros for centuries were always considered foreign invaders is nonsense.

Always was a bad choice of words, I admit.  But the Targaryens hail from Essos, originally.  They were 'foreign invaders' who conquered due do dragon power.  Eventually the assimilated.  More or less.

7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Daenerys never offered any revolutionary rhetoric to the nobility that we're aware of let alone put it into practice.

Breaking the Wheel isn't revolutionary rhetoric?

Cersei appeared to convince much of the nobility of Dany's revolutionary stance and her cruel treatment of nobles.

 

7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

You're doing this thing where instead of looking at what was actually offered in the show you're trying to fill in the gaps to make sense of it.

Yep.  That's what is done here.  We take what we read or what we saw and bounce theories and opinions off of each other.

Feel free to contribute your own ideas :)

7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

You're welcome to do that but you can't offer it as a defense of what was actually put on screen

What do you mean by 'defense of what was actually put on screen'?  I really don't understand. 

You didn't like what you saw? Is that it?

 

7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

 It could've made sense for Daenerys to become unpopular through trying to implement radical reforms, But the show never did that.

Hmm... if Dany had more of a stated agenda, then mabye. 

In the show, Dany followed Tyrions advice to try to win over the nobility.  Unfortunately for her, she failed to do so.

She already was unpopular in the regions that fought against her father - the North and the Vale in particular.  She should be unpopular in the Stormlands also, but we didn't see that.

 

7 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

It just treats Queen Cersei like a legitimate monarch who could actually rally support against the last surviving Targaryen with her allies, powerful armies, and three dragons. It's laughable. 

I agree that Cersei got more support than I expected. 

I wouldn't call her legitimate, but she was the only option for those who didn't want a Targaryen restoration.  Or a dynasty restored by foreign troops who would be 100% loyal to the monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

All the Starks showed up.  As did all of the Arryns and all of the Greyjoys.  ;)

I just assumed that Bran insisted on accompanying Sansa when she went to KL. 

 

There was no way Tyrion could have suggested Jon.  Grey Worm would not have accepted that.  Doubtful that Yara would have either.   Jon was about a poor a candidate at that point as Tyrion, for similar reasons.

Well, firstly, it was ridiculous that the Unsullied kept Jon alive in the first place. But even saving that, it makes absolutely no sense and completely destroyed any relevance the R+L=J/Jonerys plots had that, at the moment of truth, his claim wasn't even considered. And then they unanimously select someone to serve as king from a newly separate kingdom? Preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:39 AM, JonCon's Red Beard said:

Let's add 1984 to the list of books that this show has taken inspiration from instead of ASOIAF, because this is very Orwellian to my taste.

Little Brother is Watching Us All...

HAR!!

Good one, wish I'd thought of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 1:42 PM, Cron said:

Great, great points.

And I'd love to see Queen Meera by his side in the sequel.  Whatever happened to her, anyway???

She remains what she was when first we met her, Lady Meera of House Reed, the heir to Greywater Watch. 

She was always the heir, not her younger brother Jojen Reed, who was introduced only as the Lady’s brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/23/2019 at 7:09 AM, Chris is my name said:

Well, firstly, it was ridiculous that the Unsullied kept Jon alive in the first place. But even saving that, it makes absolutely no sense and completely destroyed any relevance the R+L=J/Jonerys plots had that, at the moment of truth, his claim wasn't even considered. And then they unanimously select someone to serve as king from a newly separate kingdom? Preposterous.

We don't know how they captured Jon.

Did Jon say ''I killed Dany''? Or did he surrender only after he go to the Northern army and negotiated for peace with Unsullied? And he surrendered to avoid any conflict? Arya was also there.

I guess R+L=J plot was essentially not for Jon becoming the king, it was for showing the real face of Daenarys Targaryen, especially to Jon, after that she learned the truth about him, she first tried to deny it and then tried to usurp Jon's right to the throne, which means she was just another ''Tyrant'', she was not fighting for her House Targaryen or any other noble cause.

As being said, after Jon killed Daenarys, he couldn't become the king without destroying the Unsullied, Dothraki and Yara's Iron Fleet, which was nearly impossible, but the Unsullied couldn't execute Jon as well since there was a norhtern army waiting to save Jon.

So they find the middle ground, and send Jon to the Night's Watch.

It's ironic that Jon didn't know that Night's Watch was a place that saves prisoners from execution when he first get there and he thought it was a place for noble warriors only and he was disappointed, and now he goes there for the second time but this time for the crime he has committed and it actually saved his life. 

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Jon could have always said that Daenerys took off on Drogon and disappeared. Tyrion and Bran could then have said Jon is the true heir anyway.  But that’s not Jon.   He owned up to his betrayal/murder and was willing to suffer the consequences.  As far as I am concerned, he is a hero who adhered to his principles even though it cost him great personal pain and sacrifice.  A tragic hero.

Edited by TheFirstofHerName

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2019 at 11:04 PM, Tywin Tytosson said:

Actually, there would be 7 Kingdoms.  7 independent Kingdoms.

Or maybe 6.  The Riverlands was under the thumb of the Iron Islands when Aegon arrived.

Always was a bad choice of words, I admit.  But the Targaryens hail from Essos, originally.  They were 'foreign invaders' who conquered due do dragon power.  Eventually the assimilated.  More or less.

I agree that Cersei got more support than I expected. 

I wouldn't call her legitimate, but she was the only option for those who didn't want a Targaryen restoration.  Or a dynasty restored by foreign troops who would be 100% loyal to the monarch.

Yes I should've said the Iron Throne rather than the Seven Kingdoms. My bad. 

Sure that but that doesn't mean that three centuries later the Targaryens, the creators of Westeros as a unified political entity, would be perceived as foreign invaders by the nobility when one of them comes to take the throne from a murderous usurper. 

Quote

 

Breaking the Wheel isn't revolutionary rhetoric?

Cersei appeared to convince much of the nobility of Dany's revolutionary stance and her cruel treatment of nobles.

Yep.  That's what is done here.  We take what we read or what we saw and bounce theories and opinions off of each other.

Feel free to contribute your own ideas

What do you mean by 'defense of what was actually put on screen'?  I really don't understand. 

You didn't like what you saw? Is that it?

Hmm... if Dany had more of a stated agenda, then mabye. 

In the show, Dany followed Tyrions advice to try to win over the nobility.  Unfortunately for her, she failed to do so.

She already was unpopular in the regions that fought against her father - the North and the Vale in particular.  She should be unpopular in the Stormlands also, but we didn't see that.

 

She never talks about breaking the wheel to anyone in Westeros besides Tyrion. She also mentions it in a speech to prisoners after the battle with the Tarly/Lannister army (i.e. after the nobles have already picked Cersei over her). This is far from anything any Westerosi noble would probably ever hear about let alone be worried about. She certainly never implements or tries to implement anything that could actually make the nobility concerned for what her rule might represent for their power. At least not much more than they should be concerned about what Queen Cersei Lannister (usurper, kinslayer, killer of most important religious figure in Westeros and so on) represents to their established social order. If the show wanted for Daenerys to alienate the Westerosi nobility through "breaking the wheel" then they should've shown that. 

Yep. But why did she do manage to do that? I guess Tarly just really hates foreigners to the point of being willing to march against dragons for a kinslaying usurper and every other lord in Westeros just falls into line once he does. That's not very convincing for a show that used to pride itself on its sophisticated and intelligent treatment of politics and power relationships in a feudal society. 

I didn't realize this forum was limited solely to discussions aimed at patching up the problems with the show. Here's the thing if your opinion is "this didn't make sense in the show but here's how it could've made sense" then we have nothing to disagree about . I too think it didn't make sense in the show and there are many things I would do to have it make sense (starting with no Queen Cersei because that's absurd). But if your opinion is "it made sense in the show" then that is where we disagree. No I didn't like what I saw. I thought it was profoundly stupid. And the point is none of the ideas you have offered, good though they might have been, was actually part of the show. 

Quote

 

I agree that Cersei got more support than I expected. 

I wouldn't call her legitimate, but she was the only option for those who didn't want a Targaryen restoration.  Or a dynasty restored by foreign troops who would be 100% loyal to the monarch.

 

But she's the only option because the show made her the only option. The writers could have done whatever they wanted to create a plausible conflict between a relatively unpopular Daenerys and someone on the Iron Throne. They didn't. They just plugged in Cersei. That's terrible writing. 

Edited by The One Who Kneels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 1:42 AM, NonoNono said:

Bran is not ruling. It was Bloodraven all along, he tricked everyone with prophecies and stories.

Old Nan knew. “Don’t believe him. Crows are all liars.”

Bloodraven is king and he will soon have himself his own dragon too.

Bad ending.

This is an intriguing theory that I have heard bounced around a bit..

I can't say I support it yet, though. It's possiblebut I think that's a whole lot to extrapolate from that one quote from Old Nan.

Also, as I understand it, it has not been confirmed that show-3ER (Bran's predecessor) is in fact Brynden Rivers (Bloodraven), but hey, if I'm mistaken about that, I hope someone will let me know.

I did find Bran's interest in the whereabouts of Drogon to be interesting, too, but there are other possible explanations as well, such as (a) the possibility that he knows Dany is not really done, and what he's REALLY interested in is the whereabouts of DANY'S BODY, and/or (b) as king, he wants to make sure there's not a full grown dragon roaming Westeros, as that could be, shall we say, "problematic."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×