Board Thread:TV Show Discussion/@comment-29325269-20160812000609/@comment-5308269-20160812195456

Ser Shield McShield wrote: It's incredible that people assume that everyone has read the books - I haven't so I have no idea what this conversation with Leaf was about.

But Bran can't have children. People in the real world in Bran's situation today can't have children without some invasive medical intervention yet you think Bran might be able to have children in a world with medieval level medical knowledge?

In regards to being Robb's heir, he was Robb's heir because Robb did not have any of his children yet. As soon as Robb had children, they would be the heirs. Plus, of course Bran was Robb's heir - he was the next oldest brother and Rickon was only 4 years old. Are they supposed to put a 4 year old in charge - during war time - just because the older brother can't have children at a time when both were too young to have children? So having children is not the deciding factor in who the heir is.

On top of all of this, there is nothing that says Bran cannot be an heir because he cannot father children - there are already well established rules in both this world and real world that deal with this exact situation - it just goes to the next brother. So Rickon would be Bran's heir and then Rickon's children would be the next in line.

With all that said, you based your position that Bran might be able to have children because he was Robb's heir - I think it's incredible you are willing to throw out a lot of well established inheritance rules and, frankly, common sense, to come to the conclusion that Bran can have children just because he was named childless Robb's heir because there was an alternative of a childless, 4-year-old Rickon.

In regards to Bran taking up residence in the weirwood tree in Winterfell, yeah, that is mostly my speculation and probably also a bit of fanwank but I do think it fits in with the direction the show is going. Jon has to find out at some point who his true parents are and the only one that can tell him is Bran (the show has not even confirmed if Howland Reed knows). So Bran is going to make it back to Winterfell to tell Jon about his true parents. I don't know if that is Bran's whole purpose - it would seem like a waste to train Bran up to be the next Three-Eyed Raven only to kill him quickly after he becomes it - but once he gets to Winterfell, where does he go after that? Winterfell has the weirwood tree and this one is heavily defended (though it remains to be seen if Winterfell's defenses can defend against a White Walker army (but given Winterfell's age, my bet is that it has magic defenses just like the Wall)). So Bran, once he gets to Winterfell, will stay there and do his Three-Eyed Raven to help defend against the White Walkers.

It doesn't matter whether or not you personally never read the books. Plenty of people who have assume Bran's going to stay in that cave. And it's annoying.

It depends on the extent of the damage. There are some paraplegics who can have children without medical intervention and have control of their bowels. And being able to sire children is a major pre-requisite of inheriting a feudal lordship, let alone a kingdom. And if Bran's family were fully certain he couldn't fulfill his biological duty, he would have been disinherited. It's as simple as that! Rickon would have been Robb's heir, and Bran would have had to do something else with his life. Such as going to the Citadel in Oldtown to become a Maester, which Luwin recommended at one point in the first book. You are the one ignoring rules of inheritance, and common sense, not me. I know Robb didn't yet have children, which is WHY I mentioned Bran was his legal heir. Keep up! Having children is a DUTY of a lord, if he expects his family to continue their hold over their lands and offices. And if they thought Bran couldn't do that, Robb would have no choice but to replace Bran as his heir-apparent until he fathered a child. That's how it works!

Since they operate by laws of inheritance, the age of the heir is irrelevant. Even in war-time. If Rickon was the sole male heir, the Northern lords would have just appointed a regent to rule in his name. Joffrey was himself an underaged, but still inherited, while his powerful grandfather led his armies and his uncle and mother governed in King's Landing. The Northern houses use the same laws of inheritance like every one else. They're not the Dothraki.

Since Bran is out of the cave, I would not think that this is the "direction" he's going. He only came to the Three-eyed Raven to learn and was never destined to stay there for the rest of his life. Being a "greenseer" is not an office like being a maester. Greenseers are simply wargs with additional abilities. Greenseers do not need to be in constant physical contact with trees to have visions. The Three-eyed Raven was only enveloped in a tree because he was extremely old and it was funtionally life-support for him. Bran's visions of the Tower of Joy in the book happened while he was asleep. He wasn't even touching the tree's roots when the visions came.

As for Bran's true purpose, he looks set to repeat the deeds of his ancestor, Bran the Builder, who used sorcery in his construction of the Wall and Winterfell. His story already mirrors that of the Last Hero, man who travelled to a remote location to find the Children of the Forest in order to use their magic to combat the White Walkers. Bran is literally the heir to this legacy, and Jon Snow is by now exposed as not being a scion of House Stark. The fact that his mother, Lyanna, was being guarded by two Kingsguards while she was pregnant with him hints of his Targaryen birth (Kingsguards only protect royals, and Lyanna wasn't one). Bran isn't in the story to be the Merlin to Jon Snow's King Arthur. Bran already is the heir to kings.