ChopDeMoney:
One of the best lines I liked and which is a fact;

Sandor Clegane 'this world is built by killers'

The show is kind of pointless.. What is the purpose of the lord of light exactly is game of thrones against religious fanatics, imagine bringing someone back to life just to see him get killed by night walkers ...

blingxx:


The show is kind of pointless.. What is the purpose of the lord of light exactly is game of thrones against religious fanatics, imagine bringing someone back to life just to see him get killed by night walkers ...

I really tire 4 the makers.
Jon Snow's character had no good ending. After bringing him back to life to lead & know his true identity just to send him back to the WALL. Even if he killed Danny, Y wasn't his true identity put to play?
This last episode really anger me.

Magnifico2000:

I doubt.. iron island is just an island on it's own.. I don't think it is one of the major great houses of westeros. please list the seven kingdoms for me.
1. the north. - house Stark of winterfell
2. Riverrun. -house Tully of Riverrun
3. Stormlands. - house baratheon of stormends
4. The rich. - house Tyrell of Highgarden
5. Dorne. - house martell of Dorne
6. The Vale. -house Arryn of the vale
7. Lannisport. House Lannister of Lannisport

I'm I correct?

Why did the vale unite with the seven kingdoms sef thought they were impregnable

Magnifico2000:

I doubt.. iron island is just an island on it's own.. I don't think it is one of the major great houses of westeros. please list the seven kingdoms for me.
1. the north. - house Stark of winterfell
2. Riverrun. -house Tully of Riverrun
3. Stormlands. - house baratheon of stormends
4. The rich. - house Tyrell of Highgarden
5. Dorne. - house martell of Dorne
6. The Vale. -house Arryn of the vale
7. Lannisport. House Lannister of Lannisport

I'm I correct?

Replace riverrun with greyjoy I think. It is complicated, but I think riverlands had an iron born king when aegon invaded. Basically, na middle belt Dem be with someone else usually conquering them, and them always infighting when not conquered.

The crownlands are an unofficial 8th kingdom I think.

Don't quote me tho

blingxx:



Why did the vale unite with the seven kingdoms sef thought they were impregnable

Dragon

Only dorne resisted successfully, and at a great price

Yet somehow they are now ok with Sansa getting her own kingdom while they remain stuck with the others...

Sultan5:


I do get your point about it being a Stark show. But I don't agree that Rickon would have been a better king than Bran. Bran is the perfect choice really. Jon is a good leader but he isn't a good politician. A king has to be good @ both especially in Kingslanding.

Bran knows the history of men. He knows how great kings have ruled and how they failed. He knows the effect each negative decision made by kings affect the people. If you ask me someone well knowledgeable in the history of mankind will make the perfect king. Also he sees everything, so he will know immediately who and who are conspiring against him or whoever is abusing the power he has given to them. His reign will be the most secured and positive one ever known in the 7/6 Kingdoms. He is most likely to make the best decision everytime as he will have all the information (including those ones ppl would try to hid from him) together with the knowledge of history. There's no one I can categorically say can do this not Dany (even before her madness), not Jon, definitely not Rickon, not Ned, not Varys, not Tyrion and whoever else you can think of. Bran is the perfect king and in my opinion, only 3 eyed ravens should be king. Cause they are the complete package

Those are the exact reasons why he should not be king.

A king is a king, a chief priest is a chief priest.
Bran is a chief priest.

David is a king, Samuel is a chief priest.
Arthur is a king, Merlin is a chief priest.
Aragorn is a king, Gandalf is a chief priest.

You got the point yet?

If you think only 3 eyed ravens should be king, then every folk lore or story we have ever read, watched, or heard, ought to have made the person with the supernatural powers to be the king because they are the complete package.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Everyone in their respective places.

Seun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhKOV3nImQ

I rightfully reported a monicker a few hours ago but the monickers thread is still up.This is why this forum is dying.The moderators are too lazy to carry out their duties.For example,Theresa May resigned a few hours ago and this headline news still isn't on the homepage.Disgraceful conduct all round on this website

crackhaus:

Those are the exact reasons why he should not be king.

A king is a king, a chief priest is a chief priest.
Bran is a chief priest.

David is a king, Samuel is a chief priest.
Arthur is a king, Merlin is a chief priest.
Aragorn is a king, Gandalf is a chief priest.

You got the point yet?

If you think only 3 eyed ravens should be king, then every folk lore or story we have ever read, watched, or heard, ought to have made the person with the supernatural powers to be the king because they are the complete package.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Everyone in their respective places.

Jesus is a King and High priest

crackhaus:

Those are the exact reasons why he should not be king.

A king is a king, a chief priest is a chief priest.
Bran is a chief priest.

David is a king, Samuel is a chief priest.
Arthur is a king, Merlin is a chief priest.
Aragorn is a king, Gandalf is a chief priest.

You got the point yet?

If you think only 3 eyed ravens should be king, then every folk lore or story we have ever read, watched, or heard, ought to have made the person with the supernatural powers to be the king because they are the complete package.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Everyone in their respective places.

But it did worked out that way didn't it?

And am not advocating for all people with supernatural powers to be King, If so I would have said Jaqen H'ghar should be king also together with Merlin and the likes. Lets not even bring Merlin and co to this discussion self cause they aren't in Westeroes.

I understand your view of Kings that a King should be just that and nothing more. The supernatural insights he needs, he need to get it from his "chief priest" as you called them. But why settle for less when you can have the best is my question to you. Its not all the time these Kings and Queens in the case of Dany listen to their advicers and most times end up making wrong discussions because of it. Other times they do listen only to find out that their advicers were wrong.

So the probability of them making the right decision everytime is less than 90%. I know is hard for us humans to accept change but try to put aside your notion of what should be and look forward to what ought to be.

Most times rulers made the wrong decisions not because their advicers were bad or they themselves are bad. But because they didn't have the whole information. Take Robert Baratheon for example a fairly good King (in terms of intentions not generally) made the decision to kill the boy that was sparing with Arya b4 Joffrey and Sansa came to interrupt. Because he believed the story his son told (lack of the complete picture) something am sure Merlin and co would do because who wouldn't want to believe a story told by their kid and supported by someone else with the only contradicting tale coming from a tomboy of a girl.

That right there is the problem with Kings that don't have the whole picture. What about paranoia about people coming to take your throne. This made the same Robert order the death of Dany. But when he was dieing and all the paranoia had disappeared to the background he could see the "error" of his ways. These are things the type of Kings you want or that are prevalent in folklore and stories are prone to.

I ask again why settle for less? When you could have someone with the entire wisdom of history (dare I say a Solomon of Westeroes), someone who can see what everyone is doing in open and in secret, someone with the COMPLETE information, someone who isn't a victim of paranoia but a moulder of it, someone inherently good, someone that understands things from the perspective of all his subjects. Why settle for less? Why settle for less?

blingxx:



Why did the vale unite with the seven kingdoms sef thought they were impregnable

Lol.. the then little king of the Vale was given a dragon to ride on. The Little King was so excited when he saw dragons and decided to give up the vale. He climbed the dragon as a king and came down as a little Lord. He was there after known as the "king who flew"

Seun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhKOV3nImQ

This show deserves every mockery it gets

arantess:

Jesus is a King and High priest

You got me there...
But Jesus is not human na

crackhaus:

Those are the exact reasons why he should not be king.

A king is a king, a chief priest is a chief priest.
Bran is a chief priest.

David is a king, Samuel is a chief priest.
Arthur is a king, Merlin is a chief priest.
Aragorn is a king, Gandalf is a chief priest.

You got the point yet?

If you think only 3 eyed ravens should be king, then every folk lore or story we have ever read, watched, or heard, ought to have made the person with the supernatural powers to be the king because they are the complete package.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Everyone in their respective places.

Thank you!
I have been trying to wrap my head around the character of Bran being a king but it just doesn't stick. He is more of an oracle that should be consulted when there is need.

Sultan5:


But it did worked out that way didn't it?

And am not advocating for all people with supernatural powers to be King, If so I would have said Jaqen H'ghar should be king also together with Merlin and the likes. Lets not even bring Merlin and co to this discussion self cause they aren't in Westeroes.

I understand your view of Kings that a King should be just that and nothing more. The supernatural insights he needs, he need to get it from his "chief priest" as you called them. But why settle for less when you can have the best is my question to you. Its not all the time these Kings and Queens in the case of Dany listen to their advicers and most times end up making wrong discussions because of it. Other times they do listen only to find out that their advicers were wrong.

So the probability of them making the right decision everytime is less than 90%. I know is hard for us humans to accept change but try to put aside your notion of what should be and look forward to what ought to be.

Most times rulers made the wrong decisions not because their advicers were bad or they themselves are bad. But because they didn't have the whole information. Take Robert Baratheon for example a fairly good King (in terms of intentions not generally) made the decision to kill the boy that was sparing with Arya b4 Joffrey and Sansa came to interrupt. Because he believed the story his son told (lack of the complete picture) something am sure Merlin and co would do because who wouldn't want to believe a story told by their kid and supported by someone else with the only contradicting tale coming from a tomboy of a girl.

That right there is the problem with Kings that don't have the whole picture. What about paranoia about people coming to take your throne. This made the same Robert order the death of Dany. But when he was dieing and all the paranoia had disappeared to the background he could see the "error" of his ways. These are things the type of Kings you want or that are prevalent in folklore and stories are prone to.

I ask again why settle for less? When you could have someone with the entire wisdom of history (dare I say a Solomon of Westeroes), someone who can see what everyone is doing in open and in secret, someone with the COMPLETE information, someone who isn't a victim of paranoia but a moulder of it, someone inherently good, someone that understands things from the perspective of all his subjects. Why settle for less? Why settle for less?

I wish they(or GRRM) would continue with this story of Bran being King. I'm curious to know if all his complete information and wisdom will make him rule forever.

BafanaBafana:

Thank you!
I have been trying to wrap my head around the character of Bran being a king but it just doesn't stick. He is more of an oracle that should be consulted when there is need.

If you have a thought process similar to mine, then believe me, an oracle who sees and knows everything becoming basically, a witch-king, will never make any sense.

wiegraf:


Dragon

Only dorne resisted successfully, and at a great price

Yet somehow they are now ok with Sansa getting her own kingdom while they remain stuck with the others...

Who is they? It was Bran.

I'm sure if the show was to go on, secession tussles would start in a generation or two.

Magnifico2000:

Lol.. the then little king of the Vale was given a dragon to ride on. The Little King was so excited when he saw dragons and decided to give up the vale. He climbed the dragon as a king and came down as a little Lord. He was there after known as the "king who flew"

You know your history. It was his mom though. She saw Visenya (Aegon's wife/sister) and knew that they stood no chance.

ThothHermes:
You know your history. It was his mom though. She saw Visenya (Aegon's wife/sister) and knew that they stood no chance.

Correct bro.. His mom (sharra Arryn, I'm not sure if I got the spelling) resisted at first. She gathered all the Lord's of the Vale at the Bloody gate. Only for her to see that her little son had requested to ride Vhegar. She was left with no option than to bend the knee.

Someone posted a link here sometime ago from Reddit. I can't find the link again, but I wished D$D had followed that script. It really made sense but I guess they were cutting budget, so it is fine.

now my watch has ended for GOT abeg who can suggest another Epic series?

crackhaus:

I wish they(or GRRM) would continue with this story of Bran being King. I'm curious to know if all his complete information and wisdom will make him rule forever.

. He certainly can't rule forever, 3 eyed ravens aren't immortal, but it would be interesting to see how things go. But I do believe his reign would only end after he dies of old age.

babalonshee:
now my watch has ended for GOT abeg who can suggest another Epic series?

Watch "24"

It's better than GOT

Husband and wife take their two boys to the emmys.

crackhaus:

I wish they(or GRRM) would continue with this story of Bran being King. I'm curious to know if all his complete information and wisdom will make him rule forever.

I guess GOT will continue but with a different name all centered on the reign of Bran

I8id:
I guess GOT will continue but with a different name all centered on the reign of Bran

There will be nothing interesting about the kingship of Bran. Unless maybe a comedy centered around those clowns that make up the small council.
Nobody can say anything foul about Bran, nobody can plot against him, lie to him, etc

ThothHermes:
Who is they? It was Bran.

I'm sure if the show was to go on, secession tussles would start in a generation or two.

They should have started there and then

Semtu:

Watch "24"
It's better than GOT

24 keh DAT one na oldies

Sultan5:


But it did worked out that way didn't it?

And am not advocating for all people with supernatural powers to be King, If so I would have said Jaqen H'ghar should be king also together with Merlin and the likes. Lets not even bring Merlin and co to this discussion self cause they aren't in Westeroes.

I understand your view of Kings that a King should be just that and nothing more. The supernatural insights he needs, he need to get it from his "chief priest" as you called them. But why settle for less when you can have the best is my question to you. Its not all the time these Kings and Queens in the case of Dany listen to their advicers and most times end up making wrong discussions because of it. Other times they do listen only to find out that their advicers were wrong.

So the probability of them making the right decision everytime is less than 90%. I know is hard for us humans to accept change but try to put aside your notion of what should be and look forward to what ought to be.

Most times rulers made the wrong decisions not because their advicers were bad or they themselves are bad. But because they didn't have the whole information. Take Robert Baratheon for example a fairly good King (in terms of intentions not generally) made the decision to kill the boy that was sparing with Arya b4 Joffrey and Sansa came to interrupt. Because he believed the story his son told (lack of the complete picture) something am sure Merlin and co would do because who wouldn't want to believe a story told by their kid and supported by someone else with the only contradicting tale coming from a tomboy of a girl.

That right there is the problem with Kings that don't have the whole picture. What about paranoia about people coming to take your throne. This made the same Robert order the death of Dany. But when he was dieing and all the paranoia had disappeared to the background he could see the "error" of his ways. These are things the type of Kings you want or that are prevalent in folklore and stories are prone to.

I ask again why settle for less? When you could have someone with the entire wisdom of history (dare I say a Solomon of Westeroes), someone who can see what everyone is doing in open and in secret, someone with the COMPLETE information, someone who isn't a victim of paranoia but a moulder of it, someone inherently good, someone that understands things from the perspective of all his subjects. Why settle for less? Why settle for less?

It wouldn't have been settling for less if Jon was made king because he was the rightful heir and bran being the "chief priest"

I say this because Bran would be been no ordinary fake chief priest. Everyone knew what he was and any king would adhere to his advise.

Making Bran king was just nonsense. It made Jon being brought back alive and the knowledge of being the true heir useless.

Again these guys would have been creative with the killing of the knight king even if they had somehow isolated him fighting Jon, clegane and maybe greyworm before Arya sneaking in to kill him.

The build up of the knight king and his death was rubbish just like Jon being sent to the wall when he is the true heir. It does not make any sense.

Sultan5:


. He certainly can't rule forever, 3 eyed ravens aren't immortal, but it would be interesting to see how things go. But I do believe his reign would only end after he dies of old age.

It would be a boring reign.