Yes Bran will have no kids and I am sure no bloody succession will happen after he dies. I mean have Bran look back at the history and see how well that works. This is so fucking dumb.
It's one of the reasons George Washington was so popular a choice for President in the United States, well that and being a war hero, but a big selling point was the fact that he had no children of his own (he had adopted his wife's children). So ergot no threat of succession.
And considering we've gone from Inherited Primogeniture to Elected Monarchy, we've gone from your typical standard monarch to the Holy Roman Empire. Baby steps.
How can you elect a king (is that even possible?) from an area of the world that doesn't even exist within your fooking kingdom?????????
It has happened before. George I, while being his mother's successor as the Elector of Hanover, was chosen and invited by Parliament to come and rule Great Britain when Queen Anne died (you know Queen Anne--they just made a movie about her). In order to justify him, England ignored a lot of other "rightful" bloodline heirs to the throne by discounting them for being Catholics. He was the first in line of the Protestants. Which set a precedent that it's Parliament who chooses the King or Queen if ever the bloodline runs dry. Hell, ever since the fucking Glorious Revolution when the lords of England invited the Dutch Prince William of Orange and his wife Mary to invade and overthrow King James II, Parliament has had the power to choose who gets to be King or Queen once the bloodline runs thin or the monarch goes astray--why do you think every King or Queen since George I has made bloody sure that they had plenty of offspring? And Parliament took that power, and took advantage that their new King was more interested in his lands on the continent and the fact that he couldn't speak the language very well into taking and consolidating more and more power for themselves--ergot you get the Prime Minister position forming and slowly Parliament and the Prime Minister becoming more powerful and important than the Monarch.
This ending is like combining elements from the Holy Roman Empire (elected Monarch over many kingdoms), the Glorious Revolution (Parliament--aka a Council of Lords gets to chose who's King or Queen, and they choose someone who's not native to the land, the growing irrelevance of the Monarch), and the American Revolution (choosing someone who doesn't have any children to inherit, thereby setting the precedent that inheritance by bloodline is not the way forward).
If you're a student of history, this ending is combing elements from how we actually moved forward as a Western Society and mixing them together. It's too much to expect an Early Modern society (aka Late Medieval/Early Renaissance) like Westeros to completely abandon Monarchy, but moving towards an Elected Monarchy and a rudimentary basis of a Parliament were steps that had been taken, even in the Medieval era and were part of the slow crawl towards Constitutional Republics and Representative Democracy.
They always loved reusing their favorite Hero Shots, to quote The Truman Show. Every time I see Arya on a boat like that throughout the seasons, I recall the scene in The Truman Show when Christoff calls getting a shot of Truman on the boat looking into the wind his "Hero Shot". I'm sure that's the industry term for it as well.
Is Jon the 1000th lord commander or did he just run away beyond the wall? Eh so Dorne has a new prince... could have at least shown Arianne Martell
Pretty sure the words "vote" and "world" were used in a very non medieval way, that was a little irritating
It's easier to reuse Doran and Oberyn's costume for the "Prince of Dorne".
Why does everybody forget about the Holy Roman Empire?
The Imperial Diet (Reichstag, or Reichsversammlung) was not a legislative body as we understand it today, as its members envisioned it more like a central forum where it was more important to negotiate than to decide.[54] The Diet was theoretically superior to the emperor himself. It was divided into three classes. The first class, the Council of Electors, consisted of the electors, or the princes who could vote for King of the Romans. The second class, the Council of Princes, consisted of the other princes. The Council of Princes was divided into two "benches", one for secular rulers and one for ecclesiastical ones. Higher-ranking princes had individual votes, while lower-ranking princes were grouped into "colleges" by geography. Each college had one vote.
The third class was the Council of Imperial Cities, which was divided into two colleges: Swabia and the Rhine. The Council of Imperial Cities was not fully equal with the others; it could not vote on several matters such as the admission of new territories. The representation of the Free Cities at the Diet had become common since the late Middle Ages. Nevertheless, their participation was formally acknowledged only as late as in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years' War.
Post by whitewolfstark on May 20, 2019 6:55:54 GMT
I for one see a lot of the flaws in this ending, mostly in terms of how it gets to where it gets, but overall I can see where GRRM is going and agree that the ending points are approximately where he'll end up eventually--too much borrowing from history for it to not be the case IMO.
So overall I'm satisfied with the ending, but think how we got there to be ridiculous in a lot of cases.
And besides, now we know who really rules Westeros... the Trees do.
Post by whitewolfstark on May 20, 2019 6:58:49 GMT
Further, I could imagine the Three Eyed Raven (in the show) looking for the appropriate Greenseer to inherit the mantle and training them as successor in order to take the throne.
How can you elect a king (is that even possible?) from an area of the world that doesn't even exist within your fooking kingdom?????????
It has happened before. George I, while being his mother's successor as the Elector of Hanover, was chosen and invited by Parliament to come and rule Great Britain when Queen Anne died (you know Queen Anne--they just made a movie about her). In order to justify him, England ignored a lot of other "rightful" bloodline heirs to the throne by discounting them for being Catholics. He was the first in line of the Protestants. Which set a precedent that it's Parliament who chooses the King or Queen if ever the bloodline runs dry. Hell, ever since the fucking Glorious Revolution when the lords of England invited the Dutch Prince William of Orange and his wife Mary to invade and overthrow King James II, Parliament has had the power to choose who gets to be King or Queen once the bloodline runs thin or the monarch goes astray--why do you think every King or Queen since George I has made bloody sure that they had plenty of offspring? And Parliament took that power, and took advantage that their new King was more interested in his lands on the continent and the fact that he couldn't speak the language very well into taking and consolidating more and more power for themselves--ergot you get the Prime Minister position forming and slowly Parliament and the Prime Minister becoming more powerful and important than the Monarch.
This ending is like combining elements from the Holy Roman Empire (elected Monarch over many kingdoms), the Glorious Revolution (Parliament--aka a Council of Lords gets to chose who's King or Queen, and they choose someone who's not native to the land, the growing irrelevance of the Monarch), and the American Revolution (choosing someone who doesn't have any children to inherit, thereby setting the precedent that inheritance by bloodline is not the way forward).
If you're a student of history, this ending is combing elements from how we actually moved forward as a Western Society and mixing them together. It's too much to expect an Early Modern society (aka Late Medieval/Early Renaissance) like Westeros to completely abandon Monarchy, but moving towards an Elected Monarchy and a rudimentary basis of a Parliament were steps that had been taken, even in the Medieval era and were part of the slow crawl towards Constitutional Republics and Representative Democracy.
George I had a blood claim to the English throne, even if it was behind approx thirty catholic's who were excluded from rule based on parliamental decree. He was from a duchy that existed within The Holy Roman Empire but he was a cousin to Anne, who had died with no children. She herself inherited a throne from after her sister Mary's consort/husband, William of Orange died after they did not produce an heir (William was also from within the Holy Roman Empire). The lack of them having children lead to George of Hanover becoming King of England. And that was not a smooth transition by any means and he was ridiculed by many people in England. But this makes him different from Bran in the sense that he has a blood claim to the throne of England, even if he was not from England. Bran Stark has no blood claim to what was the throne of the Seven Kingdoms, so picking him makes no more sense than picking Davos. Yes, there were huge political and religious reasons for the start of the Hanoverian kings, but none of those apply to Bran Stark. There are multiple differences between the two situations, actually.
Why does everybody forget about the Holy Roman Empire?
The Imperial Diet (Reichstag, or Reichsversammlung) was not a legislative body as we understand it today, as its members envisioned it more like a central forum where it was more important to negotiate than to decide.[54] The Diet was theoretically superior to the emperor himself. It was divided into three classes. The first class, the Council of Electors, consisted of the electors, or the princes who could vote for King of the Romans. The second class, the Council of Princes, consisted of the other princes. The Council of Princes was divided into two "benches", one for secular rulers and one for ecclesiastical ones. Higher-ranking princes had individual votes, while lower-ranking princes were grouped into "colleges" by geography. Each college had one vote.
The third class was the Council of Imperial Cities, which was divided into two colleges: Swabia and the Rhine. The Council of Imperial Cities was not fully equal with the others; it could not vote on several matters such as the admission of new territories. The representation of the Free Cities at the Diet had become common since the late Middle Ages. Nevertheless, their participation was formally acknowledged only as late as in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years' War.
As to the similarities with the Holy Roman Empire who elected their Emperor, I don't see that those apply to this situation, either. First of all, Kings and Emperor's are two different things, and some Emperor's were considered kings within their own rights and territories. In the early HRE, many of the emperors made sure that their son's would be elected after them, leading to a form of inherited monarchy if your political power was strong and you had enough votes to support those heirs. But one thing I think is consistent is that the emperor came from an area within the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. He was not elected from France or England. If the North is suddenly an independent kingdom again, then Bran does not exist from an area within "the Empire". As the HRE grew, so did the political system behind it. However, it might not have been a traditional monarchy but it was clearly controlled by dynasties, and the youngest "emperor" elected was three years old. Three? Bet he ruled well? In the course of history, the HRE was a diverse collection of rulers and rules, policies that changed and adapted over time, rulers and a power tug of war within the empire. I am not sure that is the political system that GRRM has in mind. The voting body you are mentioned came approx 600-700 years after the beginnings of the HRE system, although this was probably when it was at it's strongest, so this is obviously a system that changed and developed over multiple years. And the HRE only last approx 150 years after the Peace of Westphalia, so closer to it's death than it's birth.
If GRRM is trying to mimic a combination of these systems, I can see some of the pieces, but it makes no sense to allow the north freedom from the "empire". I am sure the show butchered what might make sense in the books, with time and some explanation behind them. But in the show, we have a pretty informal grouping, some of whom we don't even know what region they are from. I mean, Bronn has been given Highgarden and the Reach, but he isn't sitting on this council. Brienne is, and she is no lord, and we have no idea that she could now control Tarth or any large area of the Stormlands. I guess Gendry was there. We have two people from the Vale, Royce and Sweetrobin, Edmure is representing the riverlands, Asha from the Iron Islands, which isn't even one of the "seven kingdoms". I guess we have a Dornish Prince. But... who is representing the westerlands, who is representing the reach (Sam?), who is representing the crownlands? This character assembly is such show bullshit that they can't even be bothered to try to make a legitimate explanation.
As to the nod to the American Revolution, there was a fear in place even with George Washington having no children that he might not step down from the presidency after his two terms. What would have happened if he did that? He didn't, so it doesn't matter, but there is certainly no clause in our early constitution that states you can only be president if you have no heirs.
And even if early aspects of the American Revolution are in place, we know that after the revolution (even during it) there was huge debate about the political system that would be in place, weeks and months of hashing out details, not just one afternoon in the dragon pit where a bunch of people with no clear goals are gathered to get a peak at Tyrion Lannister (the smartest man in Westeros, I am supposed to believe) and Jon Snow (a no show to the meeting, who is now a queenslayer), who both should realistically be dead for their crimes against Dany! Why does Grey Worm not get to vote? The Unsullied seem to hold the capital. What about the Dothraki? They have huge numbers still in the city and therefore a political presence. But it seems like Grey Worm (with no Dothraki influence at all) allows the same group that Dany was trying to "break" to chose a new king from amongst themselves? And what about Jon Snow in all of this. Even if he is guilty of murder, he is still the Targaryen heir, and with Dany's death there is no one to naysay his claim. He should still be consulted in all of this. As I said, I am sure the show might be attempting a very clunky version of what GRRM intends, but what I saw tonight in regards to this new governmental system was not presented as well thought out. Much like the majority of these later seasons but particularly shitty writing in S7 and S8.
Last Edit: May 20, 2019 9:17:05 GMT by stdaga: spelling and clarification ...yikes!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
And just to rant a little bit more, is Bran being no better king than Robert was? We see him cruise in on hot wheels with Podrick the Pusher, basically look over his small council, and then he rolls back out again, leaving an abbreviated small council in place to rule for him? WTF? While he goes and day dreams about the location of The Last Dragon!
Beyond annoying! There is really no difference in place than at the start of the story, except a couple million people are dead, and there is no clear idea in place how Westeros and it's people will recover. We might as well have had a Soprano's ending...fade to black after Jon kills Dany! The tyrant is dead and everyone can make up their own ending.
Even if IMDB ratings really mean nothing in the long run, the episode is currently at 5.2! Wowzers! That is in the shitter! If d&d couldn't effectively nuance GRRM's ending (and they clearly cannot), then they should have just done the Hollywood version and given Jon the throne. In the end, they served no purpose for the reveal of Jon being a Targaryen, nothing. I mean I guess he rode a dragon, and in the end, Drogon didn't roast him, but that might not be because of his Targaryen blood. I mean, we know in the Dance of the Dragons, plenty of Targaryen dragons roasted and ate people of Targaryen blood, so that didn't save Jon. So what was the fooking point? Just to drive Dany insane? Blech!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
Post by whitewolfstark on May 20, 2019 10:30:45 GMT
You forget that the man who's telling the story is an anti-authoritarian hippie who protested Vietnam. Having a strong ruler or a "good" ruler was never the answer to that mindset.
You forget that the man who's telling the story is an anti-authoritarian hippie who protested Vietnam. Having a strong ruler or a "good" ruler was never the answer to that mindset.
I almost feel like GRRM might have more of a democracy in mind, the thing that Sam proposed but everyone laughed at. I know that it would be a huge step from feudal rule to rule by the people, but that makes more sense for GRRM than leaving a slightly altered version of the Status Quo in place. Even a proposal for a parliament of sorts, with representatives from common people and Lords makes more sense. I almost wonder if the laughter in the scene was a dig at GRRM's planned ending for political reform in Westeros?
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
If Bran ends up in charge in the end of the novels, then the hive mind aspect will come to play. The show down played that to the extreme. Right now they have him basically as a story teller/representative of history of memories, or what ever. Bran could have done this in the north, ruling Winterfell and the North in the same way he is ruling the rest of Westeros. What's the point? Perhaps he will suggest his subjects plant weirwoods all over Westeros?
I have only watched it once, but my first take on Jon's leaving the wall is that he was deserting... again! But on second thought, there really isn't a Night's Watch any more and this was just Tyrion's way of saving Jon's life. And to clarify, I don't mind that Jon is now north of the wall, but what is his connection to that place? Where he learned NOT to kneel? And then he knelt as soon as he caught a whiff of that silver haired siren Daenerys Targaryen? Jon and Ghost will probably be happy north of the wall, but I hope he realizes he can come back to Westeros, at least the north, whenever he likes. After all, his sister is ruling a separate kingdom that shields him from the Six Kingdoms! What's to stop him? The unsullied are gone? It seems like the Dothraki might have been sailing for Essos, as well. Perhaps he will never want to see Winterfell again, but for book Jon, Winterfell was an important connection for him. He hung on to that far longer than he worried about being a bastard or who his mother was. It was important to all the Stark children, but now it seems like Sansa is the only one who cares, and the more I think of her final scene, with her crown that mimic's Cersei is that she has become Cersei. She connived and lied and caused Jon huge problems, almost got Jon and Arya killed in the midst of her plot to destabilize Dany, AND then after lying in front of the weirwood, she has the audacity to wear a weirwood embroidered gown at her coronation! Really! I think Ned would be appalled, honestly, although Catelyn might appreciate it! Thank the gods she knows how to insulate a breast plate!
And if she does mirror Elizabeth I of England, then she will have no children and the order of rule after her will also become a mess of political maneuvering! And Bran can't have children, and Sansa and Arya don't, and they have plainly made Jon a Targaryen and seem to pretend he has no Stark blood, despite his loyal direwolf at his side, then it is the end of the Starks! And the Last of the Stark's is perhaps the bittersweet ending that GRRM had in mind!
And on hind site, after being terribly disappointed in Jon's initial treatment of Ghost, it is now apparent to me that Ghost would not have survived Kings Landing and Jon saved his life by choosing not to take him to war (I am trying to pretend to forget that dumb ass Dothraki charge or the lack of a decent goodbye from Jon to Ghost earlier) where as Dany used her dragons as a weapon, and got two of them killed, and the one that lived she used to drop an atom bomb on Kings Landing.
I do like that Drogon lived, and it kind of gives us the same feeling from the novels of the unknown aspect of a couple of the Targaryen dragons! The sight of a dragon soaring on the horizon is beautiful, not so much to see it raining fire on human victims!
Also, does Drogon have a strength meter with his fire, because a week ago, he exploded a gate house and castle walls, but this week, his fire didn't even budge the Iron Throne and it took him several attempts to melt it? If he had last weeks fire power, the Iron Throne should have blown out of the throne room with a great whoosh (along with half the throne room) and plummeted into the flames like the Mountain and the Hound!
I wish that while they were using Edmure Tully for comedy relief, he would have mentioned a direwolf in the riverlands of epic size or at least a great wolf pack, at least to give Arya a reason to smile! When did Arya become such a sailor?
I enjoyed that Arya threatened to cut Yara/Asha's throat! One of my favorite things that happened in this episode! Yara/Asha ran away from the huge battle with the Other's, only to have the audacity to proclaim her loyalty to Dany at the very end, after she and her Iron Born did nothing to help Dany in either of her huge battles in this last season. You suck, Yara/Asha! You suck! Theon is obviously the best of the Greyjoy's and that ain't saying much!
And in spite of all this whinging, I think that after an initial cool down period, some fans might come to appreciate this ending more than I do at this moment. I am not sure it will reflect in IMDB, but I am not sure that really matters!
Their father understood as well. "You want no pup for yourself, Jon?" he asked softly.
You forget that the man who's telling the story is an anti-authoritarian hippie who protested Vietnam. Having a strong ruler or a "good" ruler was never the answer to that mindset.
I almost feel like GRRM might have more of a democracy in mind, the thing that Sam proposed but everyone laughed at. I know that it would be a huge step from feudal rule to rule by the people, but that makes more sense for GRRM than leaving a slightly altered version of the Status Quo in place. Even a proposal for a parliament of sorts, with representatives from common people and Lords makes more sense. I almost wonder if the laughter in the scene was a dig at GRRM's planned ending for political reform in Westeros?
Definitely. There were not-so-subtle digs at fans and GRRM in the episode, like the completed ASOIAF book by Archmaester Ebrose, which neglected GRRM's favorite character.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."
Are you trying to give me some hope for another book? I didn't think you were a believer in GRRM ever publishing another novel in this ASOIAF series?
That is not entirely accurate. I strongly believe he will never finish aSoIaF, but another book? That is highly likely.
Disagree. Dude has had every opportunity to finish Winds, not to mention multiple missed deadlines from his agent, editor, and publisher. He simply doesn't care. His muse was money, and he's fucked her to death.
Unless a new muse rises again -- harder and stronger -- I think it's time to accept the 4 great novels we have, AFFC, and 86 novellas, as the extant ASOIAF canon.
"I can see it. You have more of the north in you than your brothers."