Game of Thrones [Potential Book Spoilers]

It did feel like Bronn got Highgarden because that was the more recognizable place rather than the most logical. Giving Tyrell land to a random sellsword under a fragilized Iron Throne (that has just lost the North) seems like begging for a revolt.

Well, the Tyrells were gone, the Tarlys turned traitor before getting roasted, and it is entirely possible the Florents went down with Stannis' faceplant. Also, Cersei emptied the vaults of Highgarden and the granaries of the Reach, before brutalizing the peasants to steal their remaining food. Also also, lots of people from there that died between the war of five kings up through mad queen strafings. Trying to clean up that mess probably did not have many volunteers, given it might have been 20-30 years before the region recovered.

Edited by ViperMagnum357 on Dec 9th 2020 at 8:09:08 AM

Still leaves the Hightowers and Oldtown intact IIRC to contest Bronn for the Reach.

Edited by doineedaname on Dec 9th 2020 at 8:14:45 AM

Her uncle who planned to take charge in the books because he isnt a baffling incompetent like her was also killed to ensure Cersei runs the Seven Kingdoms into the ground.

Edited by OmegaRadiance on Dec 9th 2020 at 5:19:25 AM

Those things add up to more reasons why Bronn shouldn't have been chosen to lead it. The North split up because the Iron Throne spent somewhere between decades and centuries treating it like an afterthought.

That nearly comical level of Reach castrophe makes the region a powder keg for a similar reasons. Everyone there is beyond desperate and their woes are pretty plausibly blamed on the Iron Throne being a unshackled mess that allowed a quick succession of mad incest babies and two consequent mass-murdering queens. By the time Bran takes over the Reach must have an all-time-low opinion of the Iron Throne as an institution, even if they have no particular reason to dislike House Stark. Choosing a upjumped common sellsword with 0 political experience and/or ties to The Reach to be the Lord Paramount of the region can be easily seen as rubbing salt in an open wound.

The most logical choices in show continuity would probably be the women of House Tarly (though one of them is a Florent by birth) as a show of good faith.

Edited by Gaon on Dec 9th 2020 at 5:26:35 AM

Yeah, in the books the Tyrells are in a far better position, as not all of them are in King's Landing at the same time and Mace has multiple heirs, all of whom are great guys both in terms of martial skill and personality.

Plus the Reach has escaped the war pretty much entirely unmolested, so the Lannisters will be in for a shock if they try and pull what they did in the show, especially with the Golden Company invading the Stormlands.

@Gaon I guess you could head-canon that Bronn either married Sam’s sister or some other powerful Reach Lord’s daughter which gave him a lot of legitimacy and power.

Bronn’s only really the ruler of the Reach because he’s a fan favorite.

And DND killed off every other major Tyrell like the hacks they are and wrote themselves into a corner. In the books all of the Tyrell heirs are far away from King's Landing and out of any real danger beyond Mace Tyrell's super-capable sons getting ready to go fuck up the Ironborn.

Edited by theLibrarian on Dec 13th 2020 at 8:28:32 AM

Man it’s weird how much the show diverged from the book.

Show wiped out an entire family while said family is alive in the source material.

Edited by slimcoder on Dec 13th 2020 at 11:54:47 AM

I suspect the Tyrells will still ultimately be wiped out in the books too, but the path it takes in the books will presumably make more sense.

Yeah I think it's fairly likely the Tyrells also get wiped out in the books. The Green Trial in particular (in which about 3/4s of the tyrells die in the show) is almost definitely happening.

Not sure of that as their actors wanted to leave at that time. Or at leastMargareys actor did.

I'm not sure how much it has to do with Bronn being a fan favorite character versus fidelity to the books.

However, based on the present books, it seems quite likely that Bronn will end the books as a powerful lord (besides his claim through marriage to the Stokeworths, also plausibly Rosby as well, in part because it's questionable whether Roslin or Perwyn Frey will survive the series).

So, I'd assume that having him be Lord of Highgarten was a means of preserving that within the 'verse of the show.

Also, I think that (logic aside), there is something compelling in the idea of a lower class character being among the new rulers (good) but that lower class character being an amoral cutthroat, symbolizing the continuation of corruption (bad).

RE the Tyrells in the books, I don't necessarily see them being totally wiped out, although I will say that I don't believe the theory that there is some kind of master plot in which Loras' injuries are fake.

I'll also say that even before the casting, Margaery seems like an obvious stand-in for Anne Boleyn, so...

Edited by Hodor2 on Dec 14th 2020 at 11:15:09 AM

Well, she was literally Anne Boleyn, so any attempt at subtly was never in the cards.

Edited by ViperMagnum357 on Dec 14th 2020 at 4:05:07 AM

True. But I mean even before the casting, the false accusations against Margaery in AFFC mirror Anne Boleyn's trial, including allegations of incest with her brother.

And while I'm not sure where it comes from (i.e. if it was a thing before The Tudors), but although Loras isn't particularly based on George Boleyn, George Boleyn tends to be presented as being gay, which Loras is as well.

That being said, the Tyrells overall aren't really that similar to the Boleyns. Like yes, in the books (and emphasized in the show) they are kind of "up-jumped", but they've been a major House for a long while. Whereas the Boleyns were fairly low ranked themselves, but had some connections through marriage to important families. I'd say that Freys or even Westerlings are a closer comparison.

I always got the impression that only some houses within the Reach considered the Tyrells to be upstarts, which was mainly tied to them not having any blood relation to the Gardener kings of old (compared to, say, the Florents who threw in their lot with Stannis partly due to that long-standing resentment).

Almost all other Great Houses of Westeros used to rule as kings, except the Tyrells and the Greyjoys - and in the latter case nobody really cared about blood ties because the Iron Islands were an elective monarchy in the first place.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Dec 14th 2020 at 12:41:40 PM

I totally agree. I'm kind of blanking on the extent to which it was in "History and Lore" versus in dialogue itself (I recall some details about them being the Gardners' stewards), but my recollection is that the show played up the idea of the Tyrells being "upstarts" to a much greater extent than the books ever did.

But in the world of both books and show, the Tyrells are of much higher status than the Boleyns. Although that is a bit complicated by Westeros having way less social mobility than late Medieval England.

Also, just a sidenote, I've read that Boleyn started out as Bullen, and knowing that, I find it charming that the Boleyn arms depict three bull heads.

According to Deadline, the House of the Dragon prequel series has nabbed Milly Alcock and Emily Carey in recurring roles.

Edited by XMenMutant22 on Jul 6th 2021 at 11:57:30 AM

New teaser trailer for House of the Dragon:

So...um... surprise, Jon Snow-centric sequel series in development, Kit Harington attached.

Edited by Synchronicity on Jun 16th 2022 at 10:19:24 AM

So what will make up 90% of his dialogue since I’ll doubt he’ll be going “She’s my Queen” and “I don’t want it!” every episode.

Bring Daenerys back from the dead.

:)

"I dun wannit, I neva av."

So.....life of a Wildling beyond the Wall?

You know nothing Jon snow