[Spoilers MAIN] The ending that should be

SpoilerMAIN

Where to start...

Maybe to cut to it immediately? Alright.

Daenerys takes the throne and then melts it and moves to live on Dragonstone. Reestablishes house Targaryen as just a house. Grows more Dragons. Magic returns to the world permanently. Jon, if he survives, joins her but not as a lover. As family. Tyrion is there too. She doesnt forget the slaves and the cities she saw and conquered in Essos.

Seven kingdoms become separate independent kingdoms.

Others break the wall down and overrun the North and the Iron Islands. The Long Night really comes. They are not so much defeated but eventually stopped and the original issues involving them and the Children are revealed and solved. Some kind of truce is achieved. Most of North is given to Others and or the Children.

Sansa rules in the castle in the snow. Winterfell becomes a sort of human outpost in the North, in permanent or much more regular winter. Brienne is with her. As is no one. And probably Rickon if he is alive. Sansa gets a new direwolf pup from Nymerias brood. They all like to talk to the Weirwood trees much more.

Ironborn are largely obliterated. Victarion is destroyed by the Mother of Dragons, Euron gets whats coming to him and takes most of loyal Ironborn with him. The islands get overrun by Others and the Ice. Asha takes over the survivors and leads them somewhere else. Probably weds Willas and takes over Highgarden, or something completely different that nobody expects!

Sam doesnt become a new Grand Maester but learns under Grand Maester Marwyin and helps build a new order after the old is destroyed and their ancient plots are discovered.

The rest depends on which characters survive but i hope to see Jaime being punished to become King of the West and the Rock. The bastard deserves it.

Some people dont die, some occasionally come back...

Because things have Changed.


There is a tonne of posts and ideas about how the series will end. I didnt see one like mine and i just want to add it to the general awareness. Im not sure why im still even interested, maybe im just trying to lie to myself, maybe the strength of the first four books still has some hold on me.

I think most of theories that basically only argue who will sit on the throne are all mistaking the tree for the forest. And i have nothing but despise for the tv show version or any that may be similar to it regardless of how well it is explained and prolonged. So even if Martin would write six more novels explaining how Daenerys went crazy and or bad it wouldn't matter. That also just gets you back to the issue of who will take the throne after her. And who takes it after that king dies. And who takes it then, and who takes it next, and so on...

Which is completely wrong.

Because, see, the Song of Ice and Fire is not about who will take the throne. Its about a fundamental change of the whole world.

The infighting in Westeros, the "game of thrones" is just a part of the greater plot. Not the actual plot of the Song. If we learned anything about what such fighting really creates its that it destroys everyone. Even without Others on the brink of invasion and Long Winter finally coming. Which really should happen in the actual story, instead of being swept away by some cheap last minute twist.

The War in Seven Kingdoms destroys everyone. The game of thrones destroys everyone. It destroys the Starks and Lannisters both, the Tyrells and the Ironborn. It kills Robb, takes Jaimes hand, drives Cersei insane, kills great scary Tywin Lannister on the toilet, smashes the viper, poisons the Mountain, tricks the tricksters and maegi, kills assassins, breaks prophecies and outplays the masters of the coins and the game (you can fill in the rest). It rains down on the noble and the low, the powerful and the weak, the just and the unjust, good and evil, innocent and guilty, heroes and monsters. The show and the showrunners. The fans, the sycopanths, the free folk, the hedge knights and the exiles.

There isnt anyone thats spared although it may superficially seem so in the moment because we still didnt get the next books in line. Everyone suffers and everyone looses, one way or another. The destruction brought by war to the houses of the Seven kingdoms, to the land itself and to the individual characters is drastic, the damage is permanent, the wounds cannot be healed. And the worst is yet to come on a scale that beggars the mere wars for the Throne.

I would say that the Long Winter will come, that the Others will crush the wall and invade and overrun most of the North. Probably all the way to the Neck, which seems like a naturally fitting position where that tide could be stopped if it is stopped anywhere.

And that of course takes us to Daenerys... "learning to rule" in Mereen. Seemingly regressing as a character and learning nothing. She doesnt find a solution for the issues of ruling there for the first time in her character arc. The best she does is pathetically getting married to some "guy" who is supposed to then handle the problems instead of her. Now, either George has completely lost it and will end up as little bit better writer than Dumb and Dumber, or... maybe its just a low every character goes through and things are not that simple or cheap as they look in ADwD.

What if, ... "learning to rule" is not a superficial character regression twist into madness and aggression? What if Daenerys learns that there is no "ruling" like in fairy tales and fantasies? Isnt that what she has been actually slowly learning from the start of her story? Culminating now when she actually took over a country, a huge city and several others by force and cunning, while still being benevolent and lifting the oppressed out of suffering. So now she could for the first time experience what it actually means to have an established rule with best possible allies and Dragons. Only to see it fall apart, from inside and outside.

And she still has to learn that her Father was not a good and just king and why and how the rebellion actually went. This has been nonsensically postponed through several books for no logical reason but we all know it must and will happen.

So... being a character that she actually is, instead of a brain failure, she will naturally try to help stop the Others. And knowing who she is and what she is actually like i would think it is far more reasonable, logical and in line with her character and history of her life that she will learn that coveting the Iron throne is the problem and understand that is what destroyed her family and the Seven Kingdoms - is the reason the kingdom cannot defend against the Long Winter and the others - while her experience in actual ruling taught her its all a fools errand. A self defeating trap that only creates and prolongs the suffering. Regardless of how nice, good, smart or not any single ruler is.

The Westeros as a united kingdom doesnt exist for a long time now anyway. The Robert rebellion was the first big crack, the War of the five kings finished it and then the Others and the Long winter came. The world has fundamentally changed. The Dragons and the magic are back, and the ancient forces as Others and the Children and all the legendary beings and powers have returned. Permanently.

I dont see any way how it all could go back to simple lording over or from the Iron throne. That would be the most pointless ending of all. Because it would mean that nothing is solved and nothing has changed.

Posted Aug 2, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

235
monty1255•

The ending that should be is whatever George decides to write. It is his story.

11
SurfaceReflectionOP•

Deep.

2

Theres a reason the century before the iron throne is called the Century of Blood.

Splitting the Iron Throne into the original kingdoms is a horrid idea. The authority that the King held prevented most conflicts on the continent for 3 centuries. There were a few rebellions, but a fractured realm leads to equally bloody wars every few years.

7
SurfaceReflectionOP•

What was the century before the bloody one called?

Who said anything about original kingdoms? Whats "original"?

You are misunderstanding. There is no united kingdom anymore. They have split themselves.

Also, several wars on Dorne, the Dance of dragons, Faith Militant uprising, the Blackfyre rebellions, War of Ninepenny kings, Roberts rebellion and the war of five kings... plus all the smaller troubles, betrayals and backstabbing. Each leaving seeds for new troubles.

It is a nice fantasy to dream of the "good king" and time freezing in that joyous moment of crowning, to be sure. But i dont think were in Kansas anymore Toto.

2

That’s even worse! If your dividing them into pre 7 Kingdoms, to a point where different Lordships are squabbling for power, that’s even worse than the century of blood.

Obviously there are issues with a united Westeros, and the various bloody rebellions prove that, but as I said, pre-conquest those kinds of conflicts happened every year.

Eventually it these smaller Lords/New Kingdoms will carve themselves into larger ones. The British Isles were once a number of different independent counts and tribes, but they got united into seperate Kingdoms and eventually one Empire pretty quick.

Why carve out independent states? How does that make Westeros any better, how is that any better than the traditional Westeros system, because to my understanding Westeros gives a decent amount of autonomy to its Lord Paramounts. Obviously there will be bad Kings, but the same will happen in this new world.

Also, how does the coming of magic mean that Westeros must be split. Both Westeros and Valyria were founded using dragons (AKA magic). If anything, a new age of magic beckons a new empire, or the return of an old one.

A divided Westeros is a bloody Westeros, the War of Five Kings happens ever few years under a divided Westeros, because people will always grub for power.

People will always play the Game of Thrones, it’s just more bloody now and less... spying.

How is this ending positive? and how can you say that Roberts Rebellion was the first crack in the Iron Throne system? Robert reigned peacefully, and his rebellion was against an evil King. If anything, RR helped reinforce the monarchal system.

I’m not proposing an absolute King over the continent, only that a united continue is INFINITELY BETTER than a divided one. Constitutional Monarchy makes way more sense, and I think it’s a much better progression from absolute monarchy.

EDIT: Pre-Century of Blood might be Age of Heroes? It’s kinda vague, it’s basically just the age of Andals lol.

2
SurfaceReflectionOP•

If your dividing them into pre 7 Kingdoms

Im not dividing anything.

but as I said, pre-conquest those kinds of conflicts happened every year.

Only thats not true. You are lying.

Why carve out independent states?

The carving is already done. They did it themselves fighting over the Iron throne, didnt you read the books?

because to my understanding Westeros gives a decent amount of autonomy to its Lord Paramounts.

Sure so... would be such a big difference if they are independent a bit more?

Obviously there will be bad Kings, but the same will happen in this new world.

Probably. You are misunderstanding my idea as if it will bring some kind of absolute utopia.

Also, how does the coming of magic mean that Westeros must be split.

It doesnt. It has split. Its over. Destroyed, gone.

A divided Westeros is a bloody Westeros, the War of Five Kings happens ever few years under a divided Westeros, because people will always grub for power.

What power? And its good you can see the future too.

People will always play the Game of Thrones, it’s just more bloody now and less... spying.

What "throne" are you talking about? Less...spying? Wut?

How is this ending positive? and how can you say that Roberts Rebellion was the first crack in the Iron Throne system? Robert reigned peacefully, and his rebellion was against an evil King. If anything, RR helped reinforce the monarchal system.

There are these books called A song of ice and fire, maybe you should read them.

1

How am I lying? If you know even one tiny little bit of history you’ll know that the more states there are, the more fighting there is between them.

Yes, giving Lord Paramounts autonomy is good, the different between autonomy and independence is that independent state’s can kill other states, autonomous ones usually can’t.

The Game of Thrones is not fighting over the Iron Throne, it’s a metaphorical fight for power. So yes, these tiny keeps and lords aren’t fighting over the iron throne, they’re fighting over the right to another lordships town, or another Keep.

The books? Are you talking about TWO5K? That’s fighting over the Iron Throne for the most part, and again, obviously absolute monarchy isnt good, which is why Constiutional monarchy makes more sense.

100 states tend to start fighting each other, it’s the way the world works.

Do you not understand that humans crave power? How can you not fathom the possibility that there will still be a ton of conflict and wars between people?

People will always grub for the power to rule another person. What happens when there’s another Tywin or Littlefinger or god forbid another Aegon that shows up? Are we just gonna undergo a bunch of wars and conflict to get back where we started?

My point overall is that, hypothetically in this new Westeros, it will be a bunch of small lords all clawing at each other lands, just like in the Bleeding Years, except multiplied by a factor of 10. If you compare that to a Westeros, which other than the occasional rebellion, is fought through intrigue and spying. I’m saying I’d rather have a single power that’s fought over with spies and secret plots than a bunch of random powers all stabbing at each other with conflict and conflict again.

Why are you implying I don’t understand the books? Unless your arguing Robert was a bad King, which I understand, but Robert is not the reason for Westeros’ undoing, Cersei and Jaime are.

1
frankwalsingham•

It was called the century of blood because of events inEssos.

1

The Century of Blood refers to the time period after the doom and before the conquest, this is correct. But to assume that it’s meaning doesn’t apply to Westeros is absurd.

The fall of valyria caused a century of blood and chaos across Planetos, because even the dragon riders exerted pressure across Westeros.

Even if you would continue to argue it doesn’t, the point still stands. The Iron Throne was the only thing keeping Lords from tearing each other apart. The few times there was instances of internal conflict, it’s usually not as bad as it could’ve been, and these types of massive wars would happen every year.

3
SurfaceReflectionOP•

Thats funny. The century of blood has nothing to do with Westeros or the seven kingdoms or the iron throne - which didnt exist in that time - but was actually a series of wars to lay claim to absolute rule and legacy of Valyria - yet thats somehow the argument for your idea about how a single power point brings prosperity and peace anyway!

lol.

Because you proclaim it is so! Even if other people continue to argue against! What a winning rhetoric mate.

Not to mention the specifics, the situation, the conditions were completely different in that case.

2

I never said that the Century of Blood involved the Iron Throne, but to assume that the collapse of the Valyrian Freehold, which was a major dominating prescence over Planetos just didn’t effect Westeros is absurd.

The point is that without a larger Kingdom to keep the smaller ones from killing each other, things will get infinitely bloodier. The original dominant power was Valyria and the new one was the Iron Throne (at least in Westeros)

Again, I am not advocating for a central power. I’m advocating for a constitutional monarchy.

Imagine if after WW3 the USA went, “We’re gonna divide into 50 states!” Canada and Mexico would start absorbing land, and there would be squabbling. A lot of it, people will always fight for power, better that it’s with cloak and dagger than sword and shield.

2

When in the absolute fuck did I say I wanted a single power to rule Westeros? I said that a united Westeros was better than a divided one. I never said that I wanted Absolute Monarchy, and I never said there should be exclusively one absolute ruler.

Where the fuck did I say that, if you’ll illustrate?

1

7 Kingdoms have much more conflict than 1 King and some squabbling Lords.

1
sauronlord100The North Forgets•

Why is Jaime becoming a King a punishment?

3
SurfaceReflectionOP•

Cos he killed one, so its only fitting. Naturally. Let him see what its like, right?

That wasnt entirely serious suggestion but then again, who knows.

-2
Greyhound_XIII•

In summation: "Hodor."

2
UMsArchive•

It's a nice thought to think that dragons and other forms of magic can exist in the world without someone trying to use them for the wrong purposes. That kingdoms can exist without ambitions men and women thinking they could be even better off taking a nice chunk of another kingdom.

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•

I would think that taking chunks of other kingdoms is going to be suspended for a while after things get resolved.

And really, some kind of absolute peaceful utopia was never the goal or the point of the story. The old way of doing things without magic and Dragons certainly didnt manage to be so peaceful.

1
balourder•

Grows more Dragons.

She doesn't know how.

Most of North is given to Others and or the Children.

Why would the Starks, the northerners, or even Jon let that happen?

Winterfell becomes a sort of human outpost in the North

Again, why would the Starks agree to a deal with the Others that fucks over only them?

Sam doesnt become a new Grand Maester but learns under Grand Maester Marwyin and helps build a new order after the old is destroyed and their ancient plots are discovered.

Sam is a member of the Night's Watch. He will do what his Lord Commander tells him to do. The only reason he was sent to Oldtown in the first place was so the Watch could get a replacement for Aemon.

Jaime being punished to become King of the West and the Rock. The bastard deserves it.

Where he is promptly murdered in his sleep by westermen who are outraged that half their country died because Jaime couldn't stop fucking his twin sister.
Jaime broke guest right in Winterfell. Dead is all he will be at the end of the story.

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•
  • She can learn. She didnt know how the first time either. And now there is magic. Besides, i wouldnt be surprised if one of her dragons is a female. Or more. Or if they reproduce asexually, or magically. Anyway, that should be the least of problems. If she could bring calcified eggs into life the first time... things should get easier now.

  • Because North will get overrun and destroyed. As i said and explained. Once the situation is resolved - and i obviously dont think its going to be "kill the evil guys and win!" deal, the surviving northmen and wildlings will basically learn to live in new conditions. Mix and mingle.

  • Night watch and the Wall will stop existing. Which will release Jon and Sam from their oaths.

  • We are far, far behind guests rights now buddy. Other that that its not because of him fucking his twin sister that half their country died. Or will die. Its because of Cersei and Tywin. In all seriousness i think its least likely he would be given or take the Western kingdom if he survives. Even if things went that way i would assume he would refuse and keep trying to escape from it.

1
balourder•

She can learn

No, she can't. The knowledge was purposefully 'lost', otherwise some Targaryen in the last 150 years would've done it and those pathetic tries to hatch an egg, like at Summerhall, wouldn't have happened.

Because North will get overrun and destroyed

Yes, I gathered that, the question remains: why would the Starks enter into an agreement with the Others? Why would they keep Winterfell as an outpost in a place that's apparently no longer viable when the Starks have claims on Riverrun and Harrenhal, too? Why would the Starks give half of the North to the Others without demanding something from the south for shielding and saving everyone?

Night watch and the wall will stop existing

They've already fought against the White Walkers once before, why would they dissolve the Watch now, after fighting them a second time? If anything, the Watch would see a massive rise in volunteers and everybody would assume that another war with the Others will happen in the future.

Which will release Jon and Sam from their oaths

Jon and Sam didn't swear to the Watch or the Wall, they swore to the Old Gods. So even if the Watch were dissolved, which it won't, they would still be bound by their oaths.

far behind guests rights now

Guest right is one of the few constants in the series. Jaime is toast.

0
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
Invictus102B•

Argh, people are going to be angry if the books are ever finished

Because George isn’t going to write what they already have preferred in their own heads.

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•

Considering every possible permutation has already been guessed its going to be very difficult to come up with one nobody thought about.

Thats alright though, as long as he doesnt write garbage like the tv show.

Btw, what i wrote is not a demand of any kind. Im just theorizing based on the story so far. Just wanted to give it a bit wider scope then merely the result of game of throne(s). One throne really.

1
Invictus102B•

Eh I like the essentials of the TV show ending?

And I think it got it mostly accurate? At least for the main characters?

1