#but anyway super duper sorry for answering this late skdjsksnskanssnsns

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

The thing about Bran's intended importance (supposedly kingship of all no less) is it falls flat as far as this due to the lack of hinting of... what that even is supposed to "do" in the grand scheme of things? The show's version of some totalitarian regime with 24/7 surveillance from the magical King is fucked up, and it's hard to understand what else would make Bran special otherwise.

The only people interested in the idea (and only as surface level) are big Stark only Stans who just see it as "Starks get everything because" and that's as deep as it gets.

The idea of who would have leadership to rebuild the world is too much built on stanning as a whole. The only ones with an actual leg to stand on are fans of Daenerys simply because her entire arc is trying at different things to restructure an oppressive elite based governing only to at this point end up with the realisation that their class simply cannot exist in a society without seeking to opress so they have to go. That's also what we see in Westeros, so both monarchy AND lordship power must be evaporated. So there's that.

But Martin isn't even angling for that as far as it seems (which would mean even Targaryens and Daenerys relinquishing power by the end and all, even if it would be the system she is currently trying to develop to be applied), but angles for a 'King'. One whose power is magic, which makes one think it is what would make him King, hence angling for the show end which is frightening as a form of government. And in the 'political' sense he's a nice kid who means well for others, but that's it. It's just the whole having a nice lord now and then without guarantee for the next.

So while it might be little page time and some unfairness for Bran, outside of people just stanning "Stark supremacy" in vague terms, it's hard to think of why and in what direction people would 'root' for Bran in the specific intended importance of role he's apparently meant to have.

Whew, you sent a big one. So I’ll try to break it up and answer in parts.

The thing about Bran's intended importance (supposedly kingship of all no less) is it falls flat as far as this due to the lack of hinting of.

I disagree. I think GRRM has been hinting at Bran being a return to the past - more specifically, a greenseer king. And even before that, Bran’s royal status has been front and center the whole time. It’s just ignored.

We as a fandom get so caught up with the magic part of Bran’s storyline (though we can’t be blamed really!) but forget that Bran’s book chapters often place his magical arc right along his identity and status as a lost prince. I’m gonna make a bit of a generalization here and say that the majority of Bran’s chapters since Robb’s ascension mention his status as the current heir to the Northern crown. He is the Prince of Winterfell. But not only that, he is the prince of the woods and the hills and the greens (we see this language being used for Bran once he begins his greenseer training). This princehood is actually extended to Bran’s direwolf, Summer. Bran’s princehood extending to Summer is quite poignant too, since the direwolf is directly named to be an opposition to winter, and Bran’s mythological parallels rule as summer kings.

Bran’s magical arc doesn’t remove him from his royal heritage. It only reinforces it. Again, think of how he becomes a prince of the natural world in an almost literal sense. And also the motifs used for his royal status: e.g., when Jojen and Meera Reed swear fealty to him, as their royal prince, through ice and fire (in addition to other natural elements).

The show took the route of placing Bran squarely in the magical arc, forgetting that first and foremost, he is an exiled prince. After Robb died, Bran became an exiled king. The main point here is that Bran is royal! He always has been, always will be. Heck, his very name literally means “Prince”.

And there’s other things about Bran’s storyline that aren’t very clear with the show’s depiction; I’m mentioning it here since people’s aversion to king Bran is mainly the show’s fault. Bran is a retelling of various Arthurian myths. You might have seen various meta on his similarities with the Fisher King, for example. I’ve written before about how Bran is also very similar to T.H White’s Wart from The Sword in the Stone (sorry, can’t find the meta link). Because the show removed the royal elements from Bran’s story, viewers weren’t able to catch that he is intended to follow the King Arthur trajectory, albeit with various twists.

When I first joined the fandom, the consensus among Bran fans was that he would be King in the North (a big theory at that time was that Westeros would split back into its pre-Targaryen markups). The idea was that there are way too many hints about Bran’s princehood, especially in relation to the North, so the only endgame that made sense was for him to rule it. And Bran does have a mini ruling arc in Winterfell in ACOK, which was good ammo for this theory.

So Bran’s relation to kingship has always been there. For years in fact; I joined this fandom over a decade ago. It’s just that no one expected his kingship would extend to all of Westeros. And I think that will be GRRM’s task, tying in why Bran will take not just the North, but the south as well. However, I have the inkling that Bran the Builder’s legend ties into this (and we know that he had a legacy all over Westeros).

what that even is supposed to "do" in the grand scheme of things?

Blame the show runners for this. They do not at all understand Bran’s importance to the narrative. And I don’t think a majority of readers understand it either. I mentioned Bran the Builder above. Well, he’s a legend that crops up sometime around the Long Night. Now we have a new war with the Others coming up, and little Bran Stark is Bran the Builder come again. Plus Bran has parallels with the last hero, who is credited with ending the Long Night. We still have two books to see how things shake out but given that Bran is following the trajectory of perhaps two of the most important legends from the War for the Dawn - one who ended it and one who rebuilt Westeros after - it’s easy to tell why he is important “in the grand scheme of things”. But we still need TWOW and ADOS to see how it all plays out. Remember, we only have a published 5 books, and Act II is barely finished!

The show's version of some totalitarian regime with 24/7 surveillance from the magical King is fucked up, and it's hard to understand what else would make Bran special otherwise.

I 100% agree that Show Bran’s ascension comes with some very problematic undertones, in addition to being totally stupid. But again, blame the showrunners for not understanding greenseeing and Bran’s relation to it. Greenseeing is, as I understand it, nature magic. It’s not just that Bran gains the ability to see through ravens and trees, but he can speak to nature as well. He can even shape it (ref Hammer of the Waters). This is going to be really important when Westeros is decimated in the War for the Dawn, and needs to be rebuilt. That’s why Bran being the prince of the “woods and the hills” and being the reincarnation (so to speak) of Bran the Builder is so important. He can rebuild Westeros. This is a very unique skill set that literally no one else has because once Bloodraven croaks, Bran inherits the mantle of the Last Greenseer.

The only people interested in the idea (and only as surface level) are big Stark only Stans who just see it as "Starks get everything because" and that's as deep as it gets.

I’ll join you in being annoyed with that particular brand of Stark fan (we all know who they are). But I just want to remind you that so many of us Bran stans (in fact the vast majority of us) do not fall within that group. Bran stans who advocate for Bran’s kingship do so because we have noted his Arthurian parallels, in addition to noting his arc as a prince in hiding/exile. None of us book fans even remotely believe in him being an all seeing autocrat, nor do we want him to be. It’s a certain type of Stark fan (again, we know who they are), who likes the idea of King Bran because they also believe in an independent North. I think an independent North (with a separate six kingdoms) as endgame is a rather ridiculous idea, and I haven’t got around to detailing why in my blog. But as far as I’m concerned if Bran is to be king, he will be king of everything.

The idea of who would have leadership to rebuild the world is too much built on stanning as a whole.

Super agree! I think the POV structure exacerbates this issue. So a majority of “who will be king”, “who deserves to be king” is solely dependent on who the reader likes best (i.e., who has the biggest fandom) and not who is most narratively suited for the role. Ironically, Bran is hurt but this because he has a pretty small fandom; by far the smallest out of the Stark POVs. So he does not benefit much from solo stanning. Again, the typical Bran stan does not believe in Starkception. If readers chose to theorize the endgame king based on who is most narratively/thematically suited for the role, wouldn’t the boy whose animal familiar is named to be the opposite of winter and likened to a prince of nature be among the most popular options?

The only ones with an actual leg to stand on are fans of Daenerys simply because her entire arc is trying at different things to restructure an oppressive elite based governing only to at this point end up with the realisation that their class simply cannot exist in a society without seeking to opress so they have to go.

Agree with Dany, but I think you’re also forgetting about a young lord commander whose entire rulership arc was about being a revolutionary in a rotten and backward system…

P.S: Jon stans can be really annoying too (I would know, I am one), but they’re not wrong when they say that he actually is the one character with the most foreshadowing for “endgame king”; he is literally King Arthur through and through, so 🤷🏽‍♀️

That's also what we see in Westeros, so both monarchy AND lordship power must be evaporated. So there's that.

It’ll be interesting to see how Martin’s critiques on feudal structures plays into the endgame leaders. Especially when we begin to factor in the thematic relevance of stories like Brienne’s and Arya’s among the smallfolk, as well as the upcoming war with the Others and how the feudal structure might do more harm than good.

I tend to have a more optimistic outlook tbh. Winter means death, and I think that will also ring true for a lot of the problematic elements in Westeros’ political and social structure. And let’s not forget that we have a bunch of civil upheavals coming up with Aegon and Daenerys both invading Westeros. I think a lot of these petty lords will die either in battle or during the long winter that’s sure to follow, so what’s left when all is said and done is having our heroes (Bran and Dany and Jon etc.) pick up the pieces. I tend to believe that a massive shake up is in the works such that while it might have been impossible for a crippled boy to rise to kingship in the AGOT era, it just might be the one remedy in ADOS.

But Martin isn't even angling for that as far as it seems (which would mean even Targaryens and Daenerys relinquishing power by the end and all, even if it would be the system she is currently trying to develop to be applied), but angles for a 'King'. One whose power is magic, which makes one think it is what would make him King, hence angling for the show end which is frightening as a form of government. And in the 'political' sense he's a nice kid who means well for others, but that's it.

This is another thing that I blame the show for: people thinking Bran can only be an all seeing tyrant. I’ve already touched on this above but again, Bran’s greenseeing magic is so much more. It’s about nature…healing….Summer! I’ve been meaning to write at length about why the resetting of the seasons will fall to Bran, and why that means healing for Westeros as a whole, but I’ll abbreviate my thoughts for now.

Let’s once again consider Bran as a Fisher King, whose very life is tied to the healing of the land. Now, I think Martin is going for a rather “fairy tale” or fantastical resolution to ASOIAF; an ending closer to Tolkien and Arthurian myth. Bran’s magic, as healing magic, is then meant to be a positive. He sets the world back to rights, as a Fisher King would. He quite literally drives the darkness (winter) away, and GRRM has stated multiple times that the Others are the true threat.

In my write up about Bran’s similarities to Wart, I mentioned that Bran’s ascension could end up being similar to Aragorn’s in LOTR (and we know that Tolkien has heavily influenced Martin). Aragorn became king not because of his swordsmanship or his politics or even his royal claim, but because he had hands of healing. And people said that there was a king who returned to them because he healed them. Healing and kingship is really not a novel thing, and they’re tied to medieval understanding of rulership. So it’s not hard to see why Bran’s magical ability to bring back summer, so to speak, can be taken as a positive of him being a rightful king.

It's just the whole having a nice lord now and then without guarantee for the next.

I get what you mean, but tbh this would be a problem with Jon, Dany, etc. Monarchy and inheritance are unpredictable. We can only hope that the king/lord trains his heir well so that prosperity follows with the exchange of power.

So while it might be little page time and some unfairness for Bran, outside of people just stanning "Stark supremacy" in vague terms, it's hard to think of why and in what direction people would 'root' for Bran in the specific intended importance of role he's apparently meant to have.

Hopefully it’s been quite clear in my reply why Bran as king is so thematically rich. He’s connected to summer, has greenseeing magic which is connected to nature and potentially the healing of nature, and he is already royal. Him being a “nice kid” is just the cherry on top.