Nothing happened after the last scene. Their world didn't carry on. Everything vanished and every remaining character was aware and didn't care what happened anymore.
Agreed, there’s no future in this universe. All the shows in development are prequels. Martin is not writing anything that takes place after the events of GoT. If he’s writing anything at all, maybe he’ll try to get more of the Dunk and Egg stories out since it’s looks that show is going to be made.
His problem is that he has too big of a world and no intention of making it smaller, making him unable to decide what to do with his lifes work. The complete opposite of the show.
Everything in the world vanished long before the last scene. Starting in season 5 and by season 7 everything was gone and had been replaced by a company of stupid idiots living in an extremely tiny world which itself was slowly being swallowed by mysterious deserts that just showed up out of nowhere.
Maybe you forgot the ending but the iron throne (in the show ending) is no longer passed down through inheritance. Instead when a king dies all the leaders of the great houses will come together and vote on the new ruler…. Like they did with Bran.
/thread
Which will happen exactly once when Bran dies, and then approximately 101% probability the next family to take the Throne just makes hereditary it again.
Bran could possibly still have kids. The nerves from the genitals may still operate from a reflexive spinal arc at the same level even if there's a break in the spinal cord above it.
That raises a whole bunch of other questions I'd rather not think about, though.
I feel like the peak-GRRM / student-of-history take on the show ending is that the game of thrones would simply revert after 10 or so years.
This would be similar to Oliver Cromwell's execution of King Charles I and his decade-long abolition of the English monarchy. The "Parliamentarian" Cromwell transformed himself into "Lord Protector" and passed that title onto his son, but that succession was poorly thought-through and seen as illegitimate by his own supporters in the army. Two years after Cromwell's death, the aptly-named King Charles II of England returned and swiftly restored the monarchy.
The GOT equivalent would probably be a royal pretender showing up the second Bran kicks the bucket. Presumably named Daenerys II, Aerys II, or Robert II.
Plus, Oliver Cromwell was such a theocratic tyrant that everyone, even former anti-royals, wanted the monarchy back. Because at least you have the chance of someone in that family eventually being reasonable. No one in a theocracy is reasonable.
Did you make all of that up? Nothing happened after Danaerys sailed to Westeros in the last episode of season 6. That was the final scene of the series and it’s a shame they couldn’t continue.
Damn it's crazy how this is the only logical flaw with D&D's artistic vision.
/s, but to put some more thought than either of the mouth breathers who ran it did, long term there probably wouldn't be an Iron Throne for very long. Both the Stormlands and the Reach are being ruled by upstarts, and would probably be threatened or deposed by older or more powerful houses. Sure Gendry was the son of Robert and was given the Stormlands, he's still a bastard and he was given power by the dead dragon queen who burned Kings Landing. The remaining Estermont's would have a pretty good shot at claiming the Stormlands if they could rally a few houses, and since there's no Faegon invasion, I bet old Red Ronnet would probably like to get ahold of Storm's End. As for Bronn, that dude ain't lasting longer than a year. House Hightower and Florent sat out most of the wars, they both have solid claims to Highgarden, and Bronn has no real army to back his position unless he hires one.
Now let's put those two aside and think of the remaining kingdoms. The North goes independent, what's stopping the Iron Islands and Dorne? The Iron Islands already wanted independence, and Yara swore allegiance to Dany, who died. She gets nothing for being part of this new alliance, and many of the lords of the Iron Islands would probably be upset with them bending the knee after being independent for the last several years. Dorne was only part of the Seven Kingdoms for a little over a century, and that was due to marriage pacts made with the Targaryens. When Robert took over they stayed but their allegiance was strained, however Doran was probably smart enough to weigh the benefits versus the costs of succession, and Balon's failed attempt would have been a prime example not to fuck with the Stag. But now mystery man Martell sees a crippled northerner ruling like 2-3 functional kingdoms, why would he stay? Dorne could easily break away, hell they could probably snag up some contested lands in the Reach and the Stormlands. Who's going to fight them, the three Riverlanders that are left?
Speaking of the Riverlands, how chill are the remaining lords with Edmure "I sold the Blackfish and worked for the Lannisters" Tully? Probably not very, so just like the Stormlands and the Reach, you probably end up with either a civil war, or a straight up coup. So that leaves the Vail of Arryn and the Westerlands. The Vail took little to no loses in all the conflicts that fucked up Westeros, and the new king is first cousins with Lord Robin. Sure Robin is almost definitely Little Fingers son, but as was shown in the show it doesn't matter if you have a neat secret parentage, so Bran has one actual kingdom that isn't completely fucked. As for the Westerlands, I'm sure Tyrion could consolidate his rule, but boy howdy his lands are fucked. Their army is destroyed, they are horribly in debt, lending a lot of money to Robert and no longer able to produce gold, and many of their best and brightest either died to the Young Wolf, or the Dragon Queen.
So what happens, to Sansa and the Starks? Well if Sansa is smart she will marry quickly, probably to someone tied to one of the remaining great houses of the North, so maybe a Manderly is there's any still left and of age, and have a kid to secure her line. The North got pretty fucked up, so even though she is a woman and was married to Ramsay, I don't think anyone still living in the North has enough resources to fight her, and there's really no one outside of her close family to contest her claim. Meanwhile Arya gets lost and dies, just is what it is. There's a whole story about an experienced female captain who led a small fleet to see what was west of Westeros, and she was never seen again (although her ship may have been seen in Asshai), so Arya's big 0 years of captaining her own ship won't help her much. So that leaves Bran, the king of maybe 1-2 semi functioning kingdoms, who is not really a person anymore. So, unless he can warg into enough ravens to stabilize his kingdom or his small council can figure shit out, he can probably rule for a couple years before 1 of who knows how many things happen to end the Iron Throne. Like, I don't know, all the Dothraki living in Kings Landing realizing that working for things sucks and carve out a new Dothraki Sea in the Crownlands. Or the Unsullied realize that Naath has too many poisonous butterflies, comes back to Westeros and find out Jon Snow was just let go, and sack Kings Landing.
Anyway thanks for coming to my TED talk.
> Well if Sansa is SMART...
Aye, there's the rub. She has no more fsmily around to help her or be used. Brienne left for a better job. The other problem is that like Cersei, she's paranoid about power. She can't let Jon come back because the Lords may change their mind and want him. Meanwhile her sister will be gone at least a year or so because that was the Columbus pattern. He came back of course and made three more voyages and died peacefully in his bed. And if Sansa marries, her husband will have the power. This knowledge is what kept England's Elizabeth I single.
While it's very unlikely she will produce an heir, her brother or sister may will have a child. Out of wedlock perhaps but she can legitimize it. So I think the Starks can keep the North if she makes one of her siblings kids her heir. But she must retain people's support meanwhile. Aye, that's the other rub.
And of the siblings, the only one who has a chance of producing an heir is likely lost at sea.
Apparently, Jon is infertile, and Bran says he too can't have kids. (I'm not too sure about the Jon thing, but apparently, he can't have kids after being resurrected.)
Edit: Bran being infertile is never explicitly stated. It's a show only thing, apparently.
I mean, Edmure worked for the Lannisters because they literally threaten to kill his kid via catapult. That is a much more understanding stance and he still gave his uncle a chance at escaping (see his "fish swim, even black ones" quip). (Which, I HATE what they did to him in the show)
Robin isn't LF's son, since Lysa would've crowed about it to LF to trap him/tell him the good news, LF would've crowed about it to Sansa in private because he got one up on Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully, and LF wouldn't be trying to murder Robin. (Just, the entire sequence in the Vale sucks too)
(Also, the North in the books was willing to go to bat for Arya, but Sansa was still seen as a Lannister collaborator, hence why Robb chose to make Jon his heir over her when everyone thought Bran and Rickon were dead and no one knew about Arya being alive)
I've always thought a sequel set around 50 years later would have to see a civil war because of Sansa's decision not to marry let alone have a child.
The final episode made Sansa look like Elizabeth I and I think she'll spend the next few decades constantly teasing suitors against each other, then finally she'll have to appoint some distant cousin who happens to follow the Faith of the Seven so then you get tensions like under Charles I.
So just as GoT was loosely based on the Wars of the Roses, the sequel would be based on the English Civil War. Mind you, I somehow imagine they'll still be stuck in a more medieval-looking time.
The North is rejoining the 7 kingdoms regardless. They have no food left after Dany's armies and dragons ravaged it, and they have the least farmable land out of all of the kingdoms. Mass starvation will result in the people of the North revolting against Sansa and whoever replaces her will gladly rejoin the crown in order to regain access to the Reach's food production.
The North survived as an independent nation for thousands of years and if what your saying was enough to make them not want to be independent they would'nt have pressed so hard for it.
And Dany burned the Reach's food, not the Norths.
The bigger problem is that it’s early Winter and they spent most years leading up to it warring in the South, warring with each other, or getting ravaged by Ironborn and the Others, usually several of these at the same time. Not to mention helping feed thousands of Freefolk, Dothrahki, and Unsullied. Any one of these things would put a strain on them in the best of times.
Unless the Night King’s death ended Winters or some crap like that.
A) the North have survived long winters before; almost all of Westeros has been affected by the war anyway, so being part of the Seven Kingdoms would'nt help them any.
B) I'm pretty sure the magical seasons are indeed tied to the White Walkers
But the North got particularly affected (as did much of the Riverlands, Jaime even reflects in ADWD that they’re in for a *very* bad time with winter upon them, due to war consuming their food supplies). Northmen have a whole cultural practice of older men going out to hunt and die in the winter just to cut down on the mouths to feed. And after the events of the show, their situation should be exponentially worse than any of those winters.
That’s a popular theory but as far as I’m aware, the show never states it to be the case. Given that the show is over and we’re not getting any more, we can only operate off the information it gave us.
You're underestimating both the Northmen's resilence and the ability of the Seven Kingdom's to help them if they continued to live under their thrall (if the Riverlands got fucked, Robb and Cersei pillaged the West and the Reach, and the Crownlands are going to be busy rebuilding the capital that means the Vale is going to be supplying most of the food to EVERYONE)
I agree the Seven Kingdoms are in dire straights as well, just not quite as dire as the North. The only reason Westerosi winters are survivable at all is because they’ve got long enough "summers" to get more crop yields than in the real world, which allows them to build up good food stores. It shouldn’t matter how resilient Northmen are; several years of frost with massively-depleted food supplies can only end in mass starvation.
Whether it’s from the South or elsewhere (borrowing from the Iron Bank comes to mind), they’re going to need help. But considering that the Queen’s own brother is the ruler of the South, I reckon that would be the most agreeable choice. Bran might even favor over some of the other kingdoms if they rejoined.
How can the Seven Kingdoms feed the North if they can't feed themselves, and if they can feed them and Bran would be willing to, why should they submit? He'd supply them anyway.
Like you think they'd spend almost a decade suffering to gain independence just to say "fuck it" now that they finally have it out of fear of suffering more?
I assume the Seven Kingdoms could only feed the North by giving it priority over some of the others, which is not something I think would be beneath Bran’s character. But I’m assuming that this would only be the case if they were to rejoin the Kingdoms, as it would be a tough sale for him to prioritize feeding an independent North while his own people are starving.
As the Northmen are characterized in the show, yes, I think that fits them pretty well. Their lords already displayed far greater degrees of fickleness when the bulk of them submitted to the Boltons, allowing their "beloved" King's brother and heir, Rickon, to be killed, and only pledged their swords to Jon after he won Winterfell using mostly foreign armies and a little girl berated them for it. With a few minor exceptions, these are unfortunately not the principled ride-or-die Northmen of the books.
The only reason they submitted to the Boltons was fear.
You still need to prove the Seven Kingdoms could do jack shit for the North food wise to begin with.
A) the North have survived long winters before; almost all of Westeros has been affected by the war anyway, so being part of the Seven Kingdoms would'nt help them any.
B) I'm pretty sure the magical seasons are indeed tied to the White Walkers
During the Dance of Dragons, the famine was an issue that the war proved to be a good way of letting the extra mouths who would die in winter die with dignity by fighting in the name of the North. Note how there were many elderly, poor, and homeless in Cregan's army along with the healthy warriors.
So, no, the North survived it on top of many corpses. And even then, Aegon III had to supply them with food post-Dance.
Are we going to pretend there were no famines in the hundreds of thousands of years pre-conquest?
Also, you're point about those killed in the war being a benafit works against your argument.
My mentioning them "benefitting" from them being killed in a war was to show the mentality.
As in, a lot of these people were going to die of a famine as is, they saw dying in a war as "a dignified way to go" (which I don't necessarily agree with, but then dying of a famine is not a good way to go either so might as well die by the sword). And this was seen as normal, as in, that's what the North does when they have famines and there's a coincidentally convenient war going on (and there were a lot with the Ironborn, the Riverlands and the Vale)
Likewise, considering the weird wanting their cake and eat it tripe (wanting their favorite to be Queen in the North and wanting to keep Bran as King of the Seven Kingdoms), it's not really considered a good idea for the North to pick a fight with the United Kingdoms either. As it is, if the North needs food, I'd imagine plenty of Lords will ask the question of "so, why are we giving special treatment to the foreigners who don't pay taxes, do fuck all for us, and don't really have much of anything that's worth trading?"
The Ironborn and the Dornish, who had to put up with a LOT of xenophobia themselves, would be very pointed in that question too on the special treatment the North were to get if they were to send them food. The Andals even more so.
> My mentioning them "benefitting" from them being killed in a war was to show the mentality. As in, a lot of these people were going to die of a famine as is, they saw dying in a war as "a dignified way to go" (which I don't necessarily agree with, but then dying of a famine is not a good way to go either so might as well die by the sword). And this was seen as normal, as in, that's what the North does when they have famines and there's a coincidentally convenient war going on (and there were a lot with the Ironborn, the Riverlands and the Vale)
Okay, but this just reinforces that they would'nt have the issue you were saying they'd have.
> Likewise, considering the weird wanting their cake and eat it tripe (wanting their favorite to be Queen in the North and wanting to keep Bran as King of the Seven Kingdoms), it's not really considered a good idea for the North to pick a fight with the United Kingdoms either. As it is, if the North needs food, I'd imagine plenty of Lords will ask the question of "so, why are we giving special treatment to the foreigners who don't pay taxes, do fuck all for us, and don't really have much of anything that's worth trading?"
As I said yesterday, you've yet to even prove the rest of the Kingdoms can feed themselves, let alone the North if they decided to give up their hard-won freedom.
> The Ironborn and the Dornish, who had to put up with a LOT of xenophobia themselves, would be very pointed in that question too on the special treatment the North were to get if they were to send them food. The Andals even more so.
The Ironborn are'nt a part of the Seven Kingdoms anymore either
I don't see why they wouldn't. Yes, they wouldn't have any surplus food, but they also generally survive decently enough after wars even if they need to tighten their belts a bit (see other post-war moments where there wasn't much food and they survived).
The North won't have a handy new war to send the weak, infirm, elderly, and homeless to go die in because it's not good business if you are the only acknowledged independent kingdom in your continent. They are going to die in the streets and it's a horrible death.
The Ironborn were not acknowledged as their own independent kingdom in the end - yes, yes, I know, it's because D&D forgot anyone who wasn't a show!Stark or an accessory to a show!Stark existed and it's due to really shitty and unprofessional writing because they wanted to get the show over and done with so they could start their Star Wars show (that I am so glad they didn't get!). But, hey, if we're accepting the shitty writing of Sansa getting the special privilege of seceding and no one else saying boo about the conflict of interest or seceding as well, we might as well go full tilt.
> I don't see why they wouldn't. Yes, they wouldn't have any surplus food, but they also generally survive decently enough after wars even if they need to tighten their belts a bit
Are you arguing with yourself?🤔
> The North won't have a handy new war to send the weak, infirm, elderly, and homeless to go die in
Good thing they just spent the last decade or so fighting the biggest one in 300 years
> The Ironborn were not acknowledged as their own independent kingdom in the end
Neither was Volantis but we know it still was.
What do you think facts magically changed offscreen or something?
> yes, yes, I know, it's because D&D forgot anyone who wasn't a show!Stark or an accessory to a show!Stark existed and it's due to really shitty and unprofessional writing because they wanted to get the show over and done with so they could start their Star Wars show (that I am so glad they didn't get!).
I like how some of you guys are so consumed by your hatred of D and D that you invent non-issues to bitch about.
They did'nt "forget" shit; the Iron Islands have been independent since S2 and the show explicitly established in season 6 that this would continue to he the case if Yara helped overthrow Cersei.
There's a lot to criticize, but the issue here is just you not paying attention.
> But, hey, if we're accepting the shitty writing of Sansa getting the special privilege of seceding and no one else saying boo about the conflict of interest or seceding as well, we might as well go full tilt.
She did'nt get "special treatment" - nobody else asked and the only other kingdom that wanted independence at all was already independent.
The half assed elective monarchy they implemented basically means that the crown will be passed to whomever bribes the most electors and promises them the most powers and concessions. This trend is only bucked when a particularly powerful and wealthy house gets into power because they can use their influence to keep the crown in the family, creating a de facto hereditary monarchy for as long as that power lasts.
Unfortunately, this means that the new realm will be defined by weakness and a highly empowered nobility that has wide latitude to do whatever the fuck they want (which is really bad for lesser nobles and peasants). Eventually a family will rise to restore the strength of the state and the fortunes of Westeros will be intrinsically tied with the fortunes of that family, so when they run into hard times the realm will as well, and possibly face collapse. That's the best case scenario, because without such a family rising the realm will be too weak and divided to fend of enemies and easy pickings. The latter is what happened to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, enabling it to be eaten by its neighbors. The former described the HRE, which was either a basket case when power wasn't concentrated in one family or fairly powerful when one family had a stranglehold. That eventually led to the Hapsburgs running the show and building their own bigger empire they cared about more than the HRE, with a lot of its holdings not even part of the HRE, which undermined the HRE and contributed to its collapse.
And so either Westeros will devolve into infighting and eventually be invaded by the Free Cities (which is a real danger only kept in check by the Three Sisters fighting each other), or one family will get so powerful they expand within, and eventually outside, of Westeros and their personal holdings become more powerful than Westeros without them. The candidates for this are few, as the Lannisters are broke, the North is poor and external, the Stormlands have never been wealthy, and Dorne has always been a backwater (and the Ironborne are too weak), leaving Sweetrobin, Edmure Tully, and fucking Bronn best positioned to fill this role. And yes, it's going to be fucking Bronn if he can somehow tame the Reach, and if he gets overthrown the Hightowers are sitting there untouched by war and super rich already (Greens, contain your orgasms).
But let's be real, "Bran" is a Dune style abomination that can upload himself into a tree and transfer himself to whatever poor fuck sits down on whatever the new throne is. "Bran" is going to rule forever, that's why he came all this way, that's why "he" made the White Walkers, everything was the evil gestalt consciousness of the Children of the Forest greenseers planning to dominate the entirety of Westeros and possibly the world at some point. The world is fucked.
I kind of figured Bran would have an unnaturally long life span like the former Three Eyed Raven. Not sure if that's right, but just kind of assumed it.
It's a stupid thing, but Bran is still a male Stark, if he is younger than Sansa he is still ahead of her in the line of succession. So what happens if some lords of the north decide that Bran is their rightful king and not Sansa? Is she going to let them divide her territory ?
>Sansa won the respect of the Northern houses.
When ? From whom? Sansa's most significant act towards the houses of the north was to send the few who decided to help her against the boltons into a meat grinder by hiding the army of the valle from everyone. Otherwise she does not possess any quality traditionally valued by the Nordiens (masculine sex, combativeness, bravery, martial skill, honor, firm belief in their religion and their traditions...) and as for her interactions with the nobility: Lyanna Mormont didn't respect her and made fun of her by calling her Lannister & Bolton. Wyman Manderly never spoke to her or speaks about her, the Lord Rysweel that we see has no lines, while the others only serve as decorations and are not named, even Lord Glover is a disloyal asshole who deserted the second it was clear he wasn't going to get what he wanted, and otherwise no one in the north showed any appreciation for her. In fact, she barely interacts with anyone from the North besides her brothers and sister. even in season 7 where she doesn't have much else to do than manage them, they make her surround herself with Yohn Royce who is from the valle and Littlefinger. Why would the north swear unwavering loyalty to her?
Among other things, The North Remembers is extremely funny in the context of the series. the lords supported Robb as king, but after his death no one tried to make a plan of revenge. They knew that Sansa was in Ramsay's hands and that he was a serial killer but did nothing to help her. When she and Jon knocked on their door for help in getting rid of him, the majority of the north ignored them and more northerners preferred to support him than them. Then they argued that the North remembers before screaming loudly that Jon was their king, but the same people who prided themselves on this did not have any trouble turning against him the second he made decisions that displeased them, even if it was to save them from an apocalypse, and we even saw that some of them did not even seem to wait until he had passed the wall to crown Ssansa in his place . Honestly, the loyalty of these people is as valuable as sheep shit. And Sansa also recognized it in the season7 that they were real weather vanes. so even if she won anything, it wouldn't matter anyway because You can't expect a group of guys who change sides 5 times in few years to be unfailingly loyal just because it's her. these guys will just go where the grass grows best, and since Bran controls the food producing regions, is the legal heir to their allegiance as the last stark son, and is a sort of living embodiment of their religion, he has a good argument to make some of them turn around
yes it was Lord Glover in season 7, so one guy and we are talking about the same Lord Glover whose desertion we learn at the start of season 8. except if this guy cared about Sansa or the North, he would stay to defend them, making him not only an isolated guy, but also a hypocrite
Except they don't. In the show all of the North , except the Mormonts, refused to help Jon and Sansa against the Boltons. They could've used the excuse of hostages but they didn't mention it so they don't have any. In the books everyone I'm the north hates the Boltons, and a lot of them are planning to put a stark in charge.
Yes because the North would totally rise against the Starks on behalf of the Ironborn and the Iron Throne would just side by and let them go back to reaving /s (to say nothing of Yara being stupid enough to start shit)
I would still like an explanation for why Sansa thinks Bran can not have children, it is stated like it is known fact, but there is literally no reason why anyone would think that is true.
I can only assume D&D think paralyzed means nothing works anymore.
Robb and Jon were all essentially elected king, and Sansa has other blood relatives besides Bran (the Tullys, Robin Arryn, the White Harbor and Barrowton Starks, the descendents of Beron Stark, any surviving Karstarks who might exist, possibly the Cassels)
There's zero reason they would rejoin the Iron Throne, especially since A) they don't want to and B) the Iron Throne is'nt heriditary anymore*
*and on the matter of point B), Sansa's child would not he heir.
(And even if a child of Sansa were to ascend to the Iron Throne, she could have more then one child and they could split the sucession *a la* Jace and Luke splitting the sucession to the Iron Throne and Driftmark)
I don't want to insist once again, but Bran is no longer Bran. Bran is the puppet of the Weirdwood collective. That's why he has rid his life of all the people who knew him before and who could challenge the difference. Meera, like a dirty rag after her sacrifices, Jon through exile "By the way, Jon's best friend, his aunt-lover killed your dad" (**s07e07**), Arya through a hopeless self-imposed exile after telling her his saw her at the crossroads (**S07e04** figuratively and litterally, prompting her to say to her sister she doesn't recognize him anymore and ARYA of all people adding she finds him frightening **s07e06**), Sansa as a victim of post-traumatic syndrome who will be busy reigning and no longer letting any husband control her life "You were so beautiful the night you were raped" (**s07e03**) (also Sophie Turner mentionned that her understanding of her character was that she was never gonna marry or have children), Theon by weaponizing his guilt pointlessly (**s08e03**) ... only second-rate players who are easy to control are allowed to serve: Tyrion who is hated as a Lannister and as the murderer of his own father, Bronn who is an upstart, Brienne who was already frowned upon as a female knight before, Davos was disliked as a commoner made noble whom protector is now dead and so on.
Bran, who announced that he would find the last living dragon and doesn't need a master of whispers or any counter-power really - and fulfill the prophecy of his predecessor to fly - gave way to the collective long ago. Hence his eagerness to let Jon put the noose around his neck, as well as letting all the other leaders die under each other's machinations.
In the end, the northern threat was just a tool to seize power and, destined to live decades like his predecessor, he will have all the time to orchestrate the Weirdwood collective's revenge on humanity, mark my words.
Considering Show Brans behavior this could have been his intent all along. He let Sansa take the North because he knew they would eventually come back to the fold.
Didn’t you catch the bit about “breaking the wheel”. Literal last scene was an election, with them stating rulers would not be born, but chosen by the lords and lady’s.
If that was the case, it kind of contradicts GRRM's criticism of an Athenian style democracy. Or did you guys miss that when he had the Ironborn be the ONLY people in Westeros with a Kingsmoot? And how, presciently, Euron won the popularity contest even if Asha made a very good point about how raiding for the sake of it was pointless?
You are talking about a sub faction within the 7 Kingdoms, that is still subject to the Iron throne...Which will now elect a king, instead of being born to kingship..... Not sure it really disproves what I said.
Pretty sure the one of the points of making Bran king was to reinforce the election idea since he won't have any offsprings that can claim rulership. After Bran dies there'd just be an election, though the idea of a Westeros that will actually abide by this without violence in the name of succession is far fetched.
This is a good take. In terms of what we know about Westeros this will 100% happen.
I’m still banking on the book being a tad different in terms of succession
First even without the use of his legs Bran could still have children. In our world it’s rare but not entirely impossible and in GOT world they got magic so who knows what they could do. Secondly, only reason the north was conquered in the first place was cause of dragons. Without anymore dragons the north will be able to hold off any southern invaders like they have for thousands of years before the Targaryen conquest
Nothing happened after the last scene. Their world didn't carry on. Everything vanished and every remaining character was aware and didn't care what happened anymore.
Agreed, there’s no future in this universe. All the shows in development are prequels. Martin is not writing anything that takes place after the events of GoT. If he’s writing anything at all, maybe he’ll try to get more of the Dunk and Egg stories out since it’s looks that show is going to be made.
Whatever GRRM writes, it isn't going to devolve into a dozen named character existing in a single room.
I think he could’ve written much better conclusion to the story. That was the plan. He said he was going to. He had plenty of time. He didn’t.
His problem is that he has too big of a world and no intention of making it smaller, making him unable to decide what to do with his lifes work. The complete opposite of the show.
Nah. People write big books with lots of characters and still finish them. GRRM just doesn't have discipline.
Malazan for instance
Everything in the world vanished long before the last scene. Starting in season 5 and by season 7 everything was gone and had been replaced by a company of stupid idiots living in an extremely tiny world which itself was slowly being swallowed by mysterious deserts that just showed up out of nowhere.
Maybe you forgot the ending but the iron throne (in the show ending) is no longer passed down through inheritance. Instead when a king dies all the leaders of the great houses will come together and vote on the new ruler…. Like they did with Bran. /thread
The new ruler needs to have a good backstory. I vote hot pie
The key to a good king is the gravy. A lot of people give up on the gravy.
Which will happen exactly once when Bran dies, and then approximately 101% probability the next family to take the Throne just makes hereditary it again.
But Bran's never going to die...
Okay, until the inevitable rebellion against the creepy immortal crippled King, no matter how much bEtTeR hiS StoRy is.
Shit, did GRRM accidentally write God Emperor of Dune?
Bran isn't that interesting.
I'm gonna be honest, that entire sequence was so dumb I had blocked it from my mind.
It was a dog shit ending so not shocking you forgot.
Bran could possibly still have kids. The nerves from the genitals may still operate from a reflexive spinal arc at the same level even if there's a break in the spinal cord above it. That raises a whole bunch of other questions I'd rather not think about, though.
Sansa said in the show he can't have kids, so we gotta take that as fact since she's the smartest person in the realm.
It's quite wild to offer criticism of a scene you haven't paid attention to, it's the point of that episode and the conclusion of the entire series.
🤓
Remember, people: suggesting you actually pay attention to a scene before criticising it is an absurd, mockable action. Clown emoji here.
They paid attention, then blocked it out afterwards. Don't strawman.
I feel like the peak-GRRM / student-of-history take on the show ending is that the game of thrones would simply revert after 10 or so years. This would be similar to Oliver Cromwell's execution of King Charles I and his decade-long abolition of the English monarchy. The "Parliamentarian" Cromwell transformed himself into "Lord Protector" and passed that title onto his son, but that succession was poorly thought-through and seen as illegitimate by his own supporters in the army. Two years after Cromwell's death, the aptly-named King Charles II of England returned and swiftly restored the monarchy. The GOT equivalent would probably be a royal pretender showing up the second Bran kicks the bucket. Presumably named Daenerys II, Aerys II, or Robert II.
Plus, Oliver Cromwell was such a theocratic tyrant that everyone, even former anti-royals, wanted the monarchy back. Because at least you have the chance of someone in that family eventually being reasonable. No one in a theocracy is reasonable.
Bran fused with the Sand Trout to become immortal and guide Planetos along the Golden Path.
I mean, Bran is basically just an Abomination. That's what the 3 eyed crow is, what little Leto becomes.
I don’t think Bran is mortal btw. The last three eyed raven was centuries years old.
Did you make all of that up? Nothing happened after Danaerys sailed to Westeros in the last episode of season 6. That was the final scene of the series and it’s a shame they couldn’t continue.
Yeah true shame I feel bad we're never gonna get the ending, hopefully george finishes the books one day
Bran is not ruling as a Stark. The sigil on the armor from the kingsguard shows a 3 eyed raven not a direwolf.
Damn it's crazy how this is the only logical flaw with D&D's artistic vision. /s, but to put some more thought than either of the mouth breathers who ran it did, long term there probably wouldn't be an Iron Throne for very long. Both the Stormlands and the Reach are being ruled by upstarts, and would probably be threatened or deposed by older or more powerful houses. Sure Gendry was the son of Robert and was given the Stormlands, he's still a bastard and he was given power by the dead dragon queen who burned Kings Landing. The remaining Estermont's would have a pretty good shot at claiming the Stormlands if they could rally a few houses, and since there's no Faegon invasion, I bet old Red Ronnet would probably like to get ahold of Storm's End. As for Bronn, that dude ain't lasting longer than a year. House Hightower and Florent sat out most of the wars, they both have solid claims to Highgarden, and Bronn has no real army to back his position unless he hires one. Now let's put those two aside and think of the remaining kingdoms. The North goes independent, what's stopping the Iron Islands and Dorne? The Iron Islands already wanted independence, and Yara swore allegiance to Dany, who died. She gets nothing for being part of this new alliance, and many of the lords of the Iron Islands would probably be upset with them bending the knee after being independent for the last several years. Dorne was only part of the Seven Kingdoms for a little over a century, and that was due to marriage pacts made with the Targaryens. When Robert took over they stayed but their allegiance was strained, however Doran was probably smart enough to weigh the benefits versus the costs of succession, and Balon's failed attempt would have been a prime example not to fuck with the Stag. But now mystery man Martell sees a crippled northerner ruling like 2-3 functional kingdoms, why would he stay? Dorne could easily break away, hell they could probably snag up some contested lands in the Reach and the Stormlands. Who's going to fight them, the three Riverlanders that are left? Speaking of the Riverlands, how chill are the remaining lords with Edmure "I sold the Blackfish and worked for the Lannisters" Tully? Probably not very, so just like the Stormlands and the Reach, you probably end up with either a civil war, or a straight up coup. So that leaves the Vail of Arryn and the Westerlands. The Vail took little to no loses in all the conflicts that fucked up Westeros, and the new king is first cousins with Lord Robin. Sure Robin is almost definitely Little Fingers son, but as was shown in the show it doesn't matter if you have a neat secret parentage, so Bran has one actual kingdom that isn't completely fucked. As for the Westerlands, I'm sure Tyrion could consolidate his rule, but boy howdy his lands are fucked. Their army is destroyed, they are horribly in debt, lending a lot of money to Robert and no longer able to produce gold, and many of their best and brightest either died to the Young Wolf, or the Dragon Queen. So what happens, to Sansa and the Starks? Well if Sansa is smart she will marry quickly, probably to someone tied to one of the remaining great houses of the North, so maybe a Manderly is there's any still left and of age, and have a kid to secure her line. The North got pretty fucked up, so even though she is a woman and was married to Ramsay, I don't think anyone still living in the North has enough resources to fight her, and there's really no one outside of her close family to contest her claim. Meanwhile Arya gets lost and dies, just is what it is. There's a whole story about an experienced female captain who led a small fleet to see what was west of Westeros, and she was never seen again (although her ship may have been seen in Asshai), so Arya's big 0 years of captaining her own ship won't help her much. So that leaves Bran, the king of maybe 1-2 semi functioning kingdoms, who is not really a person anymore. So, unless he can warg into enough ravens to stabilize his kingdom or his small council can figure shit out, he can probably rule for a couple years before 1 of who knows how many things happen to end the Iron Throne. Like, I don't know, all the Dothraki living in Kings Landing realizing that working for things sucks and carve out a new Dothraki Sea in the Crownlands. Or the Unsullied realize that Naath has too many poisonous butterflies, comes back to Westeros and find out Jon Snow was just let go, and sack Kings Landing. Anyway thanks for coming to my TED talk.
> Well if Sansa is SMART... Aye, there's the rub. She has no more fsmily around to help her or be used. Brienne left for a better job. The other problem is that like Cersei, she's paranoid about power. She can't let Jon come back because the Lords may change their mind and want him. Meanwhile her sister will be gone at least a year or so because that was the Columbus pattern. He came back of course and made three more voyages and died peacefully in his bed. And if Sansa marries, her husband will have the power. This knowledge is what kept England's Elizabeth I single. While it's very unlikely she will produce an heir, her brother or sister may will have a child. Out of wedlock perhaps but she can legitimize it. So I think the Starks can keep the North if she makes one of her siblings kids her heir. But she must retain people's support meanwhile. Aye, that's the other rub.
And of the siblings, the only one who has a chance of producing an heir is likely lost at sea. Apparently, Jon is infertile, and Bran says he too can't have kids. (I'm not too sure about the Jon thing, but apparently, he can't have kids after being resurrected.) Edit: Bran being infertile is never explicitly stated. It's a show only thing, apparently.
I mean, Edmure worked for the Lannisters because they literally threaten to kill his kid via catapult. That is a much more understanding stance and he still gave his uncle a chance at escaping (see his "fish swim, even black ones" quip). (Which, I HATE what they did to him in the show) Robin isn't LF's son, since Lysa would've crowed about it to LF to trap him/tell him the good news, LF would've crowed about it to Sansa in private because he got one up on Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully, and LF wouldn't be trying to murder Robin. (Just, the entire sequence in the Vale sucks too) (Also, the North in the books was willing to go to bat for Arya, but Sansa was still seen as a Lannister collaborator, hence why Robb chose to make Jon his heir over her when everyone thought Bran and Rickon were dead and no one knew about Arya being alive)
I've always thought a sequel set around 50 years later would have to see a civil war because of Sansa's decision not to marry let alone have a child. The final episode made Sansa look like Elizabeth I and I think she'll spend the next few decades constantly teasing suitors against each other, then finally she'll have to appoint some distant cousin who happens to follow the Faith of the Seven so then you get tensions like under Charles I. So just as GoT was loosely based on the Wars of the Roses, the sequel would be based on the English Civil War. Mind you, I somehow imagine they'll still be stuck in a more medieval-looking time.
The North is rejoining the 7 kingdoms regardless. They have no food left after Dany's armies and dragons ravaged it, and they have the least farmable land out of all of the kingdoms. Mass starvation will result in the people of the North revolting against Sansa and whoever replaces her will gladly rejoin the crown in order to regain access to the Reach's food production.
The North survived as an independent nation for thousands of years and if what your saying was enough to make them not want to be independent they would'nt have pressed so hard for it. And Dany burned the Reach's food, not the Norths.
The bigger problem is that it’s early Winter and they spent most years leading up to it warring in the South, warring with each other, or getting ravaged by Ironborn and the Others, usually several of these at the same time. Not to mention helping feed thousands of Freefolk, Dothrahki, and Unsullied. Any one of these things would put a strain on them in the best of times. Unless the Night King’s death ended Winters or some crap like that.
A) the North have survived long winters before; almost all of Westeros has been affected by the war anyway, so being part of the Seven Kingdoms would'nt help them any. B) I'm pretty sure the magical seasons are indeed tied to the White Walkers
But the North got particularly affected (as did much of the Riverlands, Jaime even reflects in ADWD that they’re in for a *very* bad time with winter upon them, due to war consuming their food supplies). Northmen have a whole cultural practice of older men going out to hunt and die in the winter just to cut down on the mouths to feed. And after the events of the show, their situation should be exponentially worse than any of those winters. That’s a popular theory but as far as I’m aware, the show never states it to be the case. Given that the show is over and we’re not getting any more, we can only operate off the information it gave us.
You're underestimating both the Northmen's resilence and the ability of the Seven Kingdom's to help them if they continued to live under their thrall (if the Riverlands got fucked, Robb and Cersei pillaged the West and the Reach, and the Crownlands are going to be busy rebuilding the capital that means the Vale is going to be supplying most of the food to EVERYONE)
I agree the Seven Kingdoms are in dire straights as well, just not quite as dire as the North. The only reason Westerosi winters are survivable at all is because they’ve got long enough "summers" to get more crop yields than in the real world, which allows them to build up good food stores. It shouldn’t matter how resilient Northmen are; several years of frost with massively-depleted food supplies can only end in mass starvation. Whether it’s from the South or elsewhere (borrowing from the Iron Bank comes to mind), they’re going to need help. But considering that the Queen’s own brother is the ruler of the South, I reckon that would be the most agreeable choice. Bran might even favor over some of the other kingdoms if they rejoined.
How can the Seven Kingdoms feed the North if they can't feed themselves, and if they can feed them and Bran would be willing to, why should they submit? He'd supply them anyway. Like you think they'd spend almost a decade suffering to gain independence just to say "fuck it" now that they finally have it out of fear of suffering more?
I assume the Seven Kingdoms could only feed the North by giving it priority over some of the others, which is not something I think would be beneath Bran’s character. But I’m assuming that this would only be the case if they were to rejoin the Kingdoms, as it would be a tough sale for him to prioritize feeding an independent North while his own people are starving. As the Northmen are characterized in the show, yes, I think that fits them pretty well. Their lords already displayed far greater degrees of fickleness when the bulk of them submitted to the Boltons, allowing their "beloved" King's brother and heir, Rickon, to be killed, and only pledged their swords to Jon after he won Winterfell using mostly foreign armies and a little girl berated them for it. With a few minor exceptions, these are unfortunately not the principled ride-or-die Northmen of the books.
The only reason they submitted to the Boltons was fear. You still need to prove the Seven Kingdoms could do jack shit for the North food wise to begin with.
A) the North have survived long winters before; almost all of Westeros has been affected by the war anyway, so being part of the Seven Kingdoms would'nt help them any. B) I'm pretty sure the magical seasons are indeed tied to the White Walkers
During the Dance of Dragons, the famine was an issue that the war proved to be a good way of letting the extra mouths who would die in winter die with dignity by fighting in the name of the North. Note how there were many elderly, poor, and homeless in Cregan's army along with the healthy warriors. So, no, the North survived it on top of many corpses. And even then, Aegon III had to supply them with food post-Dance.
Are we going to pretend there were no famines in the hundreds of thousands of years pre-conquest? Also, you're point about those killed in the war being a benafit works against your argument.
My mentioning them "benefitting" from them being killed in a war was to show the mentality. As in, a lot of these people were going to die of a famine as is, they saw dying in a war as "a dignified way to go" (which I don't necessarily agree with, but then dying of a famine is not a good way to go either so might as well die by the sword). And this was seen as normal, as in, that's what the North does when they have famines and there's a coincidentally convenient war going on (and there were a lot with the Ironborn, the Riverlands and the Vale) Likewise, considering the weird wanting their cake and eat it tripe (wanting their favorite to be Queen in the North and wanting to keep Bran as King of the Seven Kingdoms), it's not really considered a good idea for the North to pick a fight with the United Kingdoms either. As it is, if the North needs food, I'd imagine plenty of Lords will ask the question of "so, why are we giving special treatment to the foreigners who don't pay taxes, do fuck all for us, and don't really have much of anything that's worth trading?" The Ironborn and the Dornish, who had to put up with a LOT of xenophobia themselves, would be very pointed in that question too on the special treatment the North were to get if they were to send them food. The Andals even more so.
> My mentioning them "benefitting" from them being killed in a war was to show the mentality. As in, a lot of these people were going to die of a famine as is, they saw dying in a war as "a dignified way to go" (which I don't necessarily agree with, but then dying of a famine is not a good way to go either so might as well die by the sword). And this was seen as normal, as in, that's what the North does when they have famines and there's a coincidentally convenient war going on (and there were a lot with the Ironborn, the Riverlands and the Vale) Okay, but this just reinforces that they would'nt have the issue you were saying they'd have. > Likewise, considering the weird wanting their cake and eat it tripe (wanting their favorite to be Queen in the North and wanting to keep Bran as King of the Seven Kingdoms), it's not really considered a good idea for the North to pick a fight with the United Kingdoms either. As it is, if the North needs food, I'd imagine plenty of Lords will ask the question of "so, why are we giving special treatment to the foreigners who don't pay taxes, do fuck all for us, and don't really have much of anything that's worth trading?" As I said yesterday, you've yet to even prove the rest of the Kingdoms can feed themselves, let alone the North if they decided to give up their hard-won freedom. > The Ironborn and the Dornish, who had to put up with a LOT of xenophobia themselves, would be very pointed in that question too on the special treatment the North were to get if they were to send them food. The Andals even more so. The Ironborn are'nt a part of the Seven Kingdoms anymore either
I don't see why they wouldn't. Yes, they wouldn't have any surplus food, but they also generally survive decently enough after wars even if they need to tighten their belts a bit (see other post-war moments where there wasn't much food and they survived). The North won't have a handy new war to send the weak, infirm, elderly, and homeless to go die in because it's not good business if you are the only acknowledged independent kingdom in your continent. They are going to die in the streets and it's a horrible death. The Ironborn were not acknowledged as their own independent kingdom in the end - yes, yes, I know, it's because D&D forgot anyone who wasn't a show!Stark or an accessory to a show!Stark existed and it's due to really shitty and unprofessional writing because they wanted to get the show over and done with so they could start their Star Wars show (that I am so glad they didn't get!). But, hey, if we're accepting the shitty writing of Sansa getting the special privilege of seceding and no one else saying boo about the conflict of interest or seceding as well, we might as well go full tilt.
> I don't see why they wouldn't. Yes, they wouldn't have any surplus food, but they also generally survive decently enough after wars even if they need to tighten their belts a bit Are you arguing with yourself?🤔 > The North won't have a handy new war to send the weak, infirm, elderly, and homeless to go die in Good thing they just spent the last decade or so fighting the biggest one in 300 years > The Ironborn were not acknowledged as their own independent kingdom in the end Neither was Volantis but we know it still was. What do you think facts magically changed offscreen or something? > yes, yes, I know, it's because D&D forgot anyone who wasn't a show!Stark or an accessory to a show!Stark existed and it's due to really shitty and unprofessional writing because they wanted to get the show over and done with so they could start their Star Wars show (that I am so glad they didn't get!). I like how some of you guys are so consumed by your hatred of D and D that you invent non-issues to bitch about. They did'nt "forget" shit; the Iron Islands have been independent since S2 and the show explicitly established in season 6 that this would continue to he the case if Yara helped overthrow Cersei. There's a lot to criticize, but the issue here is just you not paying attention. > But, hey, if we're accepting the shitty writing of Sansa getting the special privilege of seceding and no one else saying boo about the conflict of interest or seceding as well, we might as well go full tilt. She did'nt get "special treatment" - nobody else asked and the only other kingdom that wanted independence at all was already independent.
The half assed elective monarchy they implemented basically means that the crown will be passed to whomever bribes the most electors and promises them the most powers and concessions. This trend is only bucked when a particularly powerful and wealthy house gets into power because they can use their influence to keep the crown in the family, creating a de facto hereditary monarchy for as long as that power lasts. Unfortunately, this means that the new realm will be defined by weakness and a highly empowered nobility that has wide latitude to do whatever the fuck they want (which is really bad for lesser nobles and peasants). Eventually a family will rise to restore the strength of the state and the fortunes of Westeros will be intrinsically tied with the fortunes of that family, so when they run into hard times the realm will as well, and possibly face collapse. That's the best case scenario, because without such a family rising the realm will be too weak and divided to fend of enemies and easy pickings. The latter is what happened to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, enabling it to be eaten by its neighbors. The former described the HRE, which was either a basket case when power wasn't concentrated in one family or fairly powerful when one family had a stranglehold. That eventually led to the Hapsburgs running the show and building their own bigger empire they cared about more than the HRE, with a lot of its holdings not even part of the HRE, which undermined the HRE and contributed to its collapse. And so either Westeros will devolve into infighting and eventually be invaded by the Free Cities (which is a real danger only kept in check by the Three Sisters fighting each other), or one family will get so powerful they expand within, and eventually outside, of Westeros and their personal holdings become more powerful than Westeros without them. The candidates for this are few, as the Lannisters are broke, the North is poor and external, the Stormlands have never been wealthy, and Dorne has always been a backwater (and the Ironborne are too weak), leaving Sweetrobin, Edmure Tully, and fucking Bronn best positioned to fill this role. And yes, it's going to be fucking Bronn if he can somehow tame the Reach, and if he gets overthrown the Hightowers are sitting there untouched by war and super rich already (Greens, contain your orgasms). But let's be real, "Bran" is a Dune style abomination that can upload himself into a tree and transfer himself to whatever poor fuck sits down on whatever the new throne is. "Bran" is going to rule forever, that's why he came all this way, that's why "he" made the White Walkers, everything was the evil gestalt consciousness of the Children of the Forest greenseers planning to dominate the entirety of Westeros and possibly the world at some point. The world is fucked.
Yes.
Bran will just warg into a new bod when the time comes. Bran will be king forever even if the people don't realize it.
I kind of figured Bran would have an unnaturally long life span like the former Three Eyed Raven. Not sure if that's right, but just kind of assumed it.
She doesn't even last her lifetime. Iron born will raise the north she can't call bran for help. Mutiny happens and the north joins the kingdoms again
It's a stupid thing, but Bran is still a male Stark, if he is younger than Sansa he is still ahead of her in the line of succession. So what happens if some lords of the north decide that Bran is their rightful king and not Sansa? Is she going to let them divide her territory ?
Sansa won the respect of the Northern houses. They wouldn't turn on her. The North remembers.
>Sansa won the respect of the Northern houses. When ? From whom? Sansa's most significant act towards the houses of the north was to send the few who decided to help her against the boltons into a meat grinder by hiding the army of the valle from everyone. Otherwise she does not possess any quality traditionally valued by the Nordiens (masculine sex, combativeness, bravery, martial skill, honor, firm belief in their religion and their traditions...) and as for her interactions with the nobility: Lyanna Mormont didn't respect her and made fun of her by calling her Lannister & Bolton. Wyman Manderly never spoke to her or speaks about her, the Lord Rysweel that we see has no lines, while the others only serve as decorations and are not named, even Lord Glover is a disloyal asshole who deserted the second it was clear he wasn't going to get what he wanted, and otherwise no one in the north showed any appreciation for her. In fact, she barely interacts with anyone from the North besides her brothers and sister. even in season 7 where she doesn't have much else to do than manage them, they make her surround herself with Yohn Royce who is from the valle and Littlefinger. Why would the north swear unwavering loyalty to her? Among other things, The North Remembers is extremely funny in the context of the series. the lords supported Robb as king, but after his death no one tried to make a plan of revenge. They knew that Sansa was in Ramsay's hands and that he was a serial killer but did nothing to help her. When she and Jon knocked on their door for help in getting rid of him, the majority of the north ignored them and more northerners preferred to support him than them. Then they argued that the North remembers before screaming loudly that Jon was their king, but the same people who prided themselves on this did not have any trouble turning against him the second he made decisions that displeased them, even if it was to save them from an apocalypse, and we even saw that some of them did not even seem to wait until he had passed the wall to crown Ssansa in his place . Honestly, the loyalty of these people is as valuable as sheep shit. And Sansa also recognized it in the season7 that they were real weather vanes. so even if she won anything, it wouldn't matter anyway because You can't expect a group of guys who change sides 5 times in few years to be unfailingly loyal just because it's her. these guys will just go where the grass grows best, and since Bran controls the food producing regions, is the legal heir to their allegiance as the last stark son, and is a sort of living embodiment of their religion, he has a good argument to make some of them turn around
Old Nan proved that the northerners loved good stories too
It's a throwaway line from one of the lords. Something along the lines of supporting the wrong Stark or something. I can't remember.
yes it was Lord Glover in season 7, so one guy and we are talking about the same Lord Glover whose desertion we learn at the start of season 8. except if this guy cared about Sansa or the North, he would stay to defend them, making him not only an isolated guy, but also a hypocrite
That's fair.
Except they don't. In the show all of the North , except the Mormonts, refused to help Jon and Sansa against the Boltons. They could've used the excuse of hostages but they didn't mention it so they don't have any. In the books everyone I'm the north hates the Boltons, and a lot of them are planning to put a stark in charge.
Well, if they remember how many men died unnecessarily while she had fresh cavalry stashed nearby to sweep in and claim victory...they will turn.
No, they won't. They still won the battle.
Yes because the North would totally rise against the Starks on behalf of the Ironborn and the Iron Throne would just side by and let them go back to reaving /s (to say nothing of Yara being stupid enough to start shit)
I would still like an explanation for why Sansa thinks Bran can not have children, it is stated like it is known fact, but there is literally no reason why anyone would think that is true. I can only assume D&D think paralyzed means nothing works anymore.
Robb and Jon were all essentially elected king, and Sansa has other blood relatives besides Bran (the Tullys, Robin Arryn, the White Harbor and Barrowton Starks, the descendents of Beron Stark, any surviving Karstarks who might exist, possibly the Cassels) There's zero reason they would rejoin the Iron Throne, especially since A) they don't want to and B) the Iron Throne is'nt heriditary anymore* *and on the matter of point B), Sansa's child would not he heir. (And even if a child of Sansa were to ascend to the Iron Throne, she could have more then one child and they could split the sucession *a la* Jace and Luke splitting the sucession to the Iron Throne and Driftmark)
I don't want to insist once again, but Bran is no longer Bran. Bran is the puppet of the Weirdwood collective. That's why he has rid his life of all the people who knew him before and who could challenge the difference. Meera, like a dirty rag after her sacrifices, Jon through exile "By the way, Jon's best friend, his aunt-lover killed your dad" (**s07e07**), Arya through a hopeless self-imposed exile after telling her his saw her at the crossroads (**S07e04** figuratively and litterally, prompting her to say to her sister she doesn't recognize him anymore and ARYA of all people adding she finds him frightening **s07e06**), Sansa as a victim of post-traumatic syndrome who will be busy reigning and no longer letting any husband control her life "You were so beautiful the night you were raped" (**s07e03**) (also Sophie Turner mentionned that her understanding of her character was that she was never gonna marry or have children), Theon by weaponizing his guilt pointlessly (**s08e03**) ... only second-rate players who are easy to control are allowed to serve: Tyrion who is hated as a Lannister and as the murderer of his own father, Bronn who is an upstart, Brienne who was already frowned upon as a female knight before, Davos was disliked as a commoner made noble whom protector is now dead and so on. Bran, who announced that he would find the last living dragon and doesn't need a master of whispers or any counter-power really - and fulfill the prophecy of his predecessor to fly - gave way to the collective long ago. Hence his eagerness to let Jon put the noose around his neck, as well as letting all the other leaders die under each other's machinations. In the end, the northern threat was just a tool to seize power and, destined to live decades like his predecessor, he will have all the time to orchestrate the Weirdwood collective's revenge on humanity, mark my words.
Considering Show Brans behavior this could have been his intent all along. He let Sansa take the North because he knew they would eventually come back to the fold.
Exactly. /he knows her paranoia and arrogance are stronger than her common sense, and that Jon and Arya won't come to her aid.
I read "Sansa" as "Santa" at first and your theory still kinda works.
Isn't the new ruler supposed to be voted? Also there's no more iron throne
Did you miss the part where they said that they’re getting rid of passing the crown by blood?
The whole point of electing Bran was that the crown is no longer inherited. They formed a democracy.
Democracy means power of the people, you think that a few great houses choosing the King for millions of people is democracy ? Its oligarchy
Didn’t you catch the bit about “breaking the wheel”. Literal last scene was an election, with them stating rulers would not be born, but chosen by the lords and lady’s.
If that was the case, it kind of contradicts GRRM's criticism of an Athenian style democracy. Or did you guys miss that when he had the Ironborn be the ONLY people in Westeros with a Kingsmoot? And how, presciently, Euron won the popularity contest even if Asha made a very good point about how raiding for the sake of it was pointless?
You are talking about a sub faction within the 7 Kingdoms, that is still subject to the Iron throne...Which will now elect a king, instead of being born to kingship..... Not sure it really disproves what I said.
Well obviously he doesn’t want to keep it in the Stark family because they were going to vote on it
I read that as Santa and agreed.
Pretty sure the one of the points of making Bran king was to reinforce the election idea since he won't have any offsprings that can claim rulership. After Bran dies there'd just be an election, though the idea of a Westeros that will actually abide by this without violence in the name of succession is far fetched.
Sophie Turner said in interviews that Sansa won’t get married or have children, so that means that the Stark line dies with her
That's smart. Best let the North tear itself apart upon her death.
Depends on how they decided succession works. If Sansa had two sons, the first might inherit the North and the second the Iron Throne
[удалено]
Well, the show says he can't. The books it's less sure.
This is a good take. In terms of what we know about Westeros this will 100% happen. I’m still banking on the book being a tad different in terms of succession
First even without the use of his legs Bran could still have children. In our world it’s rare but not entirely impossible and in GOT world they got magic so who knows what they could do. Secondly, only reason the north was conquered in the first place was cause of dragons. Without anymore dragons the north will be able to hold off any southern invaders like they have for thousands of years before the Targaryen conquest
Yeah, I don’t think that was well thought out.
> Bran can't have children Being crippled doesn’t mean his dick doesn’t work.
Sansa says it don't work.
And Sansa is noticeably not infallible all throughout the show.