2 Attachment(s)
House Of The Dragon Proves The Issue With Game Of Thrones' Bran Choice
While Game of Thrones' election of Bran as king was meant to introduce a major change to Westerosi politics, House of the Dragon proves it’s just a continuation of a broken cycle. After nearly a decade of familial betrayals, broken alliances, and shocking deaths, Game of Thrones’ war for the Iron Throne ended with a Great Council to elect the next ruler of Westeros. With Jon exiled to the Night’s Watch after killing Queen Daenerys, the Targaryen family line’s rule officially ended, leaving a few noble houses to elect Bran Stark—now the Three-Eyed Raven—as king.
Since the conquering of Westeros by Aegon Targaryen 300 years prior, the realm had always seen a Targaryen king on the Iron Throne. However, Bran’s Great Council wasn’t the first time that a ruler was elected by votes from houses across Westeros. Taking place 200 years before Game of Thrones, House of the Dragon will begin with the Great Council of 101 AC, which saw over 1000 lords from houses great or small join together at Harrenhal to elect the successor to King Jaehaerys I Targaryen. After considering over a dozen claims to the Iron Throne, the weeks-long deliberations concluded with Viserys I Targaryen being declared the next king of Westeros.
Game of Thrones’ ending signals a positive change in the politics of Westeros, but House of the Dragon starting on a similar note proves the doomed nature of the realm’s monarchical society. House of the Dragon actually begins on a far more representative nature in terms of how the next king was decided, as the Great Council at Harrenhal was highly organized with thousands of lords of varying importance voicing their preference for the Iron Throne’s ruler. Game of Thrones’ Great Council, however, only featured a few great houses in Westeros electing Bran the Broken as king, with the majority of participants having some loyalty or connection to House Stark. In neither case is the king being elected through a democracy, with the lords in Game of Thrones laughing off the idea of giving citizens a voice in who rules Westeros. With no true change to even the most representative of ways to choose king, the choice of Bran as king isn’t apt to solve any of the realm’s political issues.
House Of The Dragon Proves Westeros’ Dark Future After GOT’s Ending
As Game of Thrones had already established, history repeats itself; House of the Dragon’s optimistic Great Council still ends with war and tyranny over the next 200 years, suggesting the future of Westeros after Bran’s election will still see a similar chain of events. While Game of Thrones' Great Council avoided an immediate war over succession, Westerosi history, particularly in House of the Dragon, proves that the realm’s inability to adjust to democracy means peace and prosperity won’t last. Even if Bran’s reign is largely peaceful after Game of Thrones’ timeline, there are apt to be more wars and betrayals if each subsequent ruler is still chosen by a small group of powerful houses.
HBO’s Jon Snow spinoff show is already proving that Bran’s election in Game of Thrones’ ending didn’t turn Westeros into a thriving country. While Jon is apt to be located beyond the Wall in his Game of Thrones sequel series, tyranny and fatal conflicts over power didn’t end simply because Bran was placed on the throne. Game of Thrones’ ending may have ended the hereditary monarchy of Westeros that inspired House of the Dragon’s civil war, but it didn’t actually break the wheel of tyranny.
