Sam took the black, he has no house or status.

They just put whoever was still alive up there.

To take that further, how does the new system stop what happened at the beginning of the series with Joffrey? The Lannisters, Tyrells, and Dorne would have still ended up arrayed against the Baratheons and Starks regardless of some vote. The only thing it would have done was allow some public forum for the rumors/facts that Ned Stark wanted to put out there.

dc509 said:

---

Quote:

---

1) Bran: There was way too much of that story left untold. Too many loose ends. My guess is these would have been wrapped up in the book. I never found Brans character compelling, and this thread of the story always bored me. Turns out, I was bored for no reason.

Melt Down Rating: 2/10

---

I'm with you on this. A question that comes to mind is, as he said, "Why do you think I came all this way?" Do we think Bran planned this, or knew it would play out this way? Some insight into that, or insight into how he might have known or set it up would have been nice. Even if it only made sense with the benefit of hindsight.

---

I think he was just being a little punk and showing off that he can see future events. That is why he was waiting out front for Jaime to arrive at Winterfell.
I don't think Bran planned this. I think he is just there to follow history along, etc. I think they are just trying to establish how wise he will be. But it was an odd line to drop.

If a vote system had been installed after Robert Baratheon died, there's no way Joffrey would have gotten the throne.

The only other caveat they should have added is that the elected king/queen still can be elected out. So like every 5 years or something, a new vote is held.

More on Jon, just my thoughts:

I think when Jon left KL, everyone (except Bran probably) thought he was truly exiled. When he got there and the Free Folk accepted him (smiling as he walks through their group) he probably realized he could leave with them. In a way, Bran probably set up a situation that was best for Jon (no strings attached, he can live a life suited to him).

Would have been nice to have a quick scene with Tormund where he tells Jon something like "Hey, the free folk are leaving and going back to our real home. The new king won't care if you leave..." And Jon just cocks his head and you can tell the idea clicks in his mind.

Just a quick 30sec scene like that and then cut to them walking through the wall gate to the North.

He's no longer in the black. He's the Grand Maester now.

I don't actually think there is a Knight's Watch anymore. I think that Jon was sent there because Bran knew he would find peace with the free folk. Hence why they left Castle Black at the end. He's sort of the King Beyond the Wall now.

Cepe said:

---

A few of my thoughts:

1) I'm good with Bran being king. It's called Game of Thrones and he played the game better than anyone.

2) I don't think D&D knew Bran was the one until later in the series and thought "oh ****" and had to figure out how to make it happen.

3) I think they tried to have a huge plot twist at the end with Bran but executed it poorly.

4) I think they got lost in over-directing the final season (11 straight weeks of filming every night for the Long Night!!) and lost track of the actual story line when they had to edit it together.

---

I think that's why Bran was just a side character for so long, they purposely tried to make us not care about him. Just to get that "Aha!" moment. Which apparently worked, but I think they took it too far.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Martins never finishing the books.

---

This. I absolutely hope that he comes out and gives his full blessing on Season 8 and states that this is exactly the story he wanted to tell. And now he has no need to finish the books. Since he doesn't have any pages to begin with and wrote himself into a corner that he couldn't get out of.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

If a vote system had been installed after Robert Baratheon died, there's no way Joffrey would have gotten the throne.

The only other caveat they should have added is that the elected king/queen still can be elected out. So like every 5 years or something, a new vote is held.

---

The reality is this system doesn't really work that way. Its not like the Pope, where when the Pope dies and everybody gets together everything starts relatively fresh and many people have a shot.

Each elector would basically always know which family they were going to vote for in a system of alliances from the very beginning (so like before the show even starts, if Robert had died before anyone knew anything for example, Joffrey could expect the Starks, Tullys Arryns, Lannister and Baratheon votes with full confidence, because that was the block that took the throne for Robert in the first place plus their marriage alliances. Nobody would have ever voted anybody but Joffrey (until the hands of the king found out Joffrey wasnt his son at all). Once that happened, war was gonna be the result because the Starks, Baratheons, and Arryns no longer supported his claim, but the Lannisters just werent gonna go OK, I guess we lose. Plus the rest of the kingdom had no unified opposition candidate either.

Quote:

---

I dont' see Grey Worm as a heel turn. He was a devout follower of his liberator and queen.

He didn't want to kill off the King's Landing forces after surrender, but he saw what his Queen wanted and followed.

---

I see your point . I guess what I am saying is from an audience point of view. Audience went from liking him as a character to not liking him, hence heel turn

chase128 said:

---

Did anyone notice the blade of grass sticking out of the snow north of the Wall? I guess winter is truly over and the free folk will have a nice country to live in soon.

---

A dream of spring.

This system actually existed, and with powerful kings who didnt **** it up, its basically just hereditary. This even is shown in the world, where the Iron Islands has a scandinavian I think style of elective monarchy, but has been allowed to lapse into being just hereditary by tradition, and they revive it basically just to avoid Theon automatically getting it.

chase128 said:

---

Did anyone notice the blade of grass sticking out of the snow north of the Wall? I guess winter is truly over and the free folk will have a nice country to live in soon.

---

well, yea Arya killed winter. everyone knows old Nan's tales of winter. it only ends with the feast of the great winter stabbing.

JJxvi said:

---

This system actually existed, and with powerful kings who didnt **** it up, its basically just hereditary. This even is shown in the world, where the Iron Islands has a scandinavian I think style of elective monarchy, but has been allowed to lapse into being just hereditary by tradition, and they revive it just to avoid Theon automatically getting it.

---

It might have usually been hereditary, but that doesn't mean it always was. The Hapsburg's weren't the only family to be Holy Roman Emperor, nor did they rule uninterrupted once they really came into power so someone like Joffery whose tendencies were known wouldn't necessarily been able to assume support. The Doge of Venice was also selected by a council, and I believe they actually had laws to inhibit the position from becoming hereditary.

Damn. I was excited about the possibility of winning the Iron Throne in the AT&T contest until Drogon crapped all over that by melting the damn thing. Oh well.

bobinator said:

---

Cersei fits in perfectly with the society that produced her. She's not an outlier. That's one of the main themes of the books. All the "Good Guys" we keep trying to empathize with, end up being just as lustful for the throne as the "Bad Guys", or they prove to be colossally stupid, which isn't something you want in a ruler either.

Judging Cersei as an insane genocidal psychopath is easy by the Social Justice metrics of comparing people to our enlightened Earth 21st century moral standards. But in a feudal system, people are merely extensions of their ruler, in whom is vested the power, that's what it means to be a "royal subject". Cersei is actually pretty average in the history of Westeros.

---

I'm just going to stand here and do my petty Internet "I told you so" victory dance.

My point could not have been more clearly made in the final scenes than if I'd had a direct copy of the script three weeks ago.

Witness the reaction of everyone else at the final meeting of Lords Of The Realm, when Sam suggests some form of democracy whereby the subjects stop being subjects and instead are granted the will to choose their own ruler. It is completely preposterous and laughed at by the very Lords and Ladies who have spent the past 9 years slaughtering each other's subjects.

Do you get it yet? To the people sitting there in the Dragon Pit, none of the millions of deaths of non-main-characters since the moment Robert took the throne have meant a damn thing other than as a tally of strength to destroy someone else's power. Cersei is not exceptional in the history of Westeros.

bobinator said:

---

You're just wrong here. You said there's nothing to suggest she's a genocidal maniac, yet she committed a very blatant act of genocide (wiping out an entire religious group) that resulted in the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent people.

She didn't just kill the people in the sept, she killed everyone in the whole area with absolutely no regard for innocent lives. We see the bell crushing innocent people, and the explosion rippled out pretty far from just the Sept itself. It's not like she just poisoned the faith militant like Arya did with the Freys. She blew up a holy temple in the middle of a crowded city with absolutely no regard for the lives of her own people.

That's the difference in what she did and what the others did/have done. This wasn't attack against another people, these were ostensibly her people, in her city. And it wasn't an assassination, or a targeted strike, or it wasn't like she was trying to only get a select few people and something went wrong. This was the plan.

Now, have there been other rulers that have done horrible stuff, sure, in the past.

So for #1, it doesn't matter what other people have done. Your premise is whether her winning would be any worse for the people than any of the others winning, and she is CLEARLY worse than everyone else in contention here.

She's a genocidal maniac even by the standards of this time.

---

Well well well....

Now who is it that is "CLEARLY worse than everyone else in contention"?
Danaerys Targayen. Not Cersei. Danaerys. Higher death toll. Higher death toll of innocents. Future plans to implement a Final Solution to the problems of the world.

Do you see the difference yet? The writers just spelled it out for you in the last two episodes since my post. Cersei just wanted power/security for herself and her family. She's ruthless, yes. People are expendable pawns to her -- as the people have been for all of the Lords and Ladies ruling Westeros throughout this entire show. That's bland and banal for her world and her era.

Dany, on the other hand, is the genocidal monster here. She could have skipped the inside of KL, flown her dragon straight to the Red Keep, killed Cersei, taken the throne, and had power over an entire continent -- IF, that is, she had merely been your average everyday power-hungry ruler like Cersei.

bonfarr said:

---

If Bran/3EyedRaven can see the future he would have known he would ultimately be crowned King. Did Bran orchestrate everything that occurred with that goal in mind? Did he warg into Dany and make her go mad and burn the city down? He made Hodor and King Aerys go nuts so not impossible. Bran was the best player in the Game of Thrones everyone else was just a pawn.

---

He didn't make King Aerys go nuts.

This argument is even worse than your last one. Just because some else ALSO became a genocidal maniac doesn't mean that Cersei suddenly isn't one.