There’s no way that the people of the Reach would be loyal to some random sellsword that wasn’t even from that region. Tradition and hierarchy and needing to feel like your ruler is “one of us” would be a big thing to a society like that. They might be willing to accept rule by force by someone outside the traditional hierarchy (not only not a noble within the traditional reach hierarchy, but a commoner), but you’d have to at least give them a story with roots in the region. Bronn is just about the last person in the world they’d accept.
It was, quite frankly, childish fanservice. “All our fan favorite characters have to have a happy ending. Bronn’s been wanting wealth and a castle all his life, so…”
Also, master of coin needs to be educated in math, and would normally be an accountant of sorts. That in no way describes Bronn. We don’t even know if Bronn can do math other than counting coins in his pocket. Bronn has also repeatedly declared that he has no loyalty other than to money, so putting him in charge of the Kingdom’s finances is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Well, unless you consider that all of them are now living in the ultimate surveillance state, where their king can see everything they do, all the time. So I guess Bronn may stay on the straight and narrow if he knows that the King would know if he stole anything, but then he probably wouldn’t enjoy living in that world. And I wonder how many other people will really enjoy having a king who can watch them whenever he wants, without their knowing it. Sounds pretty unpleasant to me.
I can’t believe I’m defending the writing choices of all the people who contributed to this unsatisfying ending, but my impression is that the Master of Coin should, above all, be able to coerce people into paying their taxes. And Bronn’s not a bad choice for that job. If for no other reason, he’s cynical about how rich people feel about paying what they owe.
That, and Bran’s ability to control the last dragon by warging, makes the Bran-ruled kingdom a frickin’ Hobbesian leviathon state incarnate.
I don’t think so. Especially the “all the time” bit. Bran is a green-seer and 3ER, he’s not omniscient or anything like that. He has to actively go look for something, and then he has to fit it in with everything else he knows. His Westeros intranet has no Google and no index. He can examine probabilities, not read minds. A solo assassin could nail his ass easily. For that matter, a cabal of plotters could get away with a lot if Bran has no reason to go snooping on them. The usual suspects will be looked in upon, but if Bronn decided on his own to be the next Kingslayer and slit Bran’s throat at the next council meeting, who could stop him?
Well, people only know what Bran wants them to know in that regard. Sam knows that his ability requires guidance, but it probably isn’t common knowledge. All people know is that this dude can see the past/future/whatever he wants, and that’ll scare the shit out of them and keep them from plotting against him in the first place.
You two both make excellent points. But ultimately I would agree that if people wanting to move against him didn’t know he is something less than omniscient, they would feel a deterrent to even try. He could help encourage this by making something of a show of snooping on certain people.
I think this is generally right, but a big point against it is Colibri’s observation that Westerosi society and population have been decimated. And the people responsible for that decimation were the tradition-approved nobles. Under those specific circumstances, it’s fair to assume that a) no-one’s got the stomach or capacity for active rebellion and b) a lot of people might think it’s time for a change.
In our world, the population loss caused by the Black Death led to a shake-up of power relations in feudal Europe as society adjusted to the new ratio of peasants:land:lords. Something similar will be happening in Westeros. For example, the North is as large as the Six Kingdoms combined, and as of the end of the show, its entire civilian population could fit in Winterfell’s crypts.* I don’t know what exactly Sansa thinks she’s queen of, but I don’t see a way forward for the North that doesn’t involve a lot of new nobles getting some pretty massive land grants. It must be practically frontier ownership - if you can farm it, you can keep it.
Something similar applies pretty much across Westeros. It’s a society powered (as in, literally powered) solely by muscles - mainly men, horses and oxen. The death toll has been pretty high among males of military age, and we can safely assume that the supply of pack horses took a hit over years of war as well. As food supply declines, the average lifespan of oxen (and indeed horses) tends to take a hit too. It’s harder to estimate what the death toll among women is - probably not as high as the numbers of men who perished in direct battles, but the general lawlessness and specific terror campaigns such as Clegane in the Riverlands and, it’s fair to assume, the Boltons in the North, have probably had a pretty sizable impact. General starvation will of course affect everyone, notably the old (in economic terms, no great loss) but also children (a big deal).
In short, the people of the Reach may not have a high opinion of Bronn, but they’re going to be much more focused on finding a way to feed themselves than on anything else - rebellion is a luxury commodity.
*There’s a line in ep 1 or 2 re. the Glovers that anyone not in Winterfell is assumed dead. Even allowing for sensible planning pessimism and a few far-flung hold-outs, there’s not a lot of Northerners above ground right now.
In fact, thinking about it, I bet Dorne comes out of this strongly. They lost an army but were never invaded, are/were less affected by winter than anyone else, have a more egalitarian society than the rest of Westeros which should help them adjust to demographic changes and already have trading relationships with Essos. In the race to bounce back, I think they’re a step ahead of everyone else.