Game of Thrones: Jon, not Bran, had the best “story”

3 of 3

Photo Credit: HBO

A Flawed System

I understand that Tyrion and others wanted to “break the wheel” and create a system whereby being the “rightful heir” didn’t matter, but there are a lot of potential flaws in the system they agreed upon. It seems unlikely that once Bran dies, people will just peacefully come together and pick another ruler. The system of monarchy is very flawed, but it at least creates a certain level of stability in terms of passing the torch from one ruler to the next. Having Jon as King would have enabled this system to continue, and he would have laid a good foundation moving forward. Of course, per Sam’s suggestion, a democracy would be preferable, but it just wouldn’t have been possible in the current world.

The downside to the “monarchy” approach is the very real possibility that the rightful heir would be awful like Joffrey. But what about a middle ground, where a group of Westeros leaders comes together to choose the next king among a pool of potential heirs connected to the King? For example, when Jon theoretically died, people could come together to choose a king among his children, relatives, etc. This would limit the number of potential suitors for king and also avoid the “Joffrey” situation. Under the new system installed in the finale, everyone would have a shot at the Throne, and I think violence would be inevitable. But then again, maybe violence would be inevitable no matter what.

Next. Game of Thrones series finale reactions and surprises. dark

Overall, I’m satisfied with the ending for Jon’s character. However, I think he was the obvious choice for King, and he should have had the opportunity to reject it and head North rather than being forced to do so. Not only was he the rightful heir, but Tyrion’s “story” argument for Bran was actually better suited for Jon.

Did you feel like the right person was chosen to sit on the Iron Throne? Be sure to tell us in the comment section below!