So, it's finally over. Someone finally won the Game of Thrones after eight grueling seasons jam-packed with moments that induce a rainbow of emotions. Bran Stark, whoever or whatever in Seven Hells he is, is now the king of the six kingdoms of Westeros. Astounding poetry there since he was the first victim of the Game of Thrones, but the last laugh is still his. Whether we like that development or not, matters little, sadly.
The die has been cast; we can writhe in our beds at night thinking that someone else should have won the throne, but Bran will still be king. It's not all that bad, of course. Bran might even be objectively better than the previous kings of Westeros (though that doesn't mean he's the best candidate). If you're not polarized about Bran enough already, here are five reasons why he makes for a good king and five more why it should have been a certain Targaryen instead.
BUILT-IN SPY NETWORK (GOOD)
Being the Three-eyed Raven has its perks. Bran has an ability to "warg" into animals and creatures of lesser minds than men and it allows him to see literally anything from the past, far away present places, and perhaps even the future. He can even peer into someone else and see their childhood or beyond that. Simply put, he knows the truth about everything.
That's why keeping any secret from him is pretty much impossible. Even the spot where Drogon went to take Daenerys' corpse is no mystery to him. Anything that exists in Westeros or probably even other continents is not safe from the Three-eyed Raven's gaze. In that regard, he probably doesn't even need a Master of Whisperers or spymaster on his council to give him the latest gossip on the lords and ladies of Westeros.
HE'S WEIRD (BAD)
Bran being the Three-eyed Raven can be a double-edged sword. Since you can't really lie to him and he also knows the most recent time you wet your bedsheets. The problem is, he has no reservations on telling you that. He even vocally confirmed to Sansa that he saw her at her most vulnerable moment-- which is downright disrespectful and weird as per human conventions.
No one really understands Bran and for that reason alone, he can be unrelatable. Not to mention his answers to pretty simple questions can also be cryptic; Bran's not really one for a great conversation. Not even Tyrion can squeeze some wisdom (or character development) out of him. How can such an inhuman character be made to look after millions of humans?
HE CAN'T BE INTIMIDATED (GOOD)
Since Bran apparently has fewer emotions than White Walkers, we can safely assume that he knows no fear or anger. That makes him one of the few kings (or the only king) in Westeros who cannot be goaded, insulted, or intimidated. One can try, but it will probably result in a blank gaze from Bran usually followed by an awkward silence.
Basically, Bran is immune to political power-tripping and this can probably make him appear more intimidating to any uppity lord in one of his six kingdoms. We did mention that he's weird and nigh unreadable; anyone who dares threaten Bran will have a hard time gauging his reactions let alone what he's thinking about. He'll probably retort with how red you were on the chamber pot during your most recent struggle with constipation.
EASY TO ASSASSINATE (BAD)
A king in a wheelchair who only has one or two truly loyal bodyguards, that's King Bran the Broken for you. He definitely needs a more intricate security detail since nothing will stop an assassin proficient with a bow from ending his royal tenure. Bran can't even defend himself against the Night King despite having the ability to possibly warg and control something as big as a dragon.
Granted, Bran is also a greenseer-- people in Westeros who can see things from the past or possibly the future (making them candidates for the Three-eyed Raven). However, neither the show nor the books clearly stated whether Bran as a greenseer can see into the future. Even if he did, he'll probably just accept the fact that someone's going to assassinate him eventually. If anything, any future he sees is most likely set in stone, similar to how Jojen Reed knew when he was going to die.
HE'S A STARK (GOOD)
Three-eyed Raven or not, there's no doubt Bran is still a Stark. This is regardless of how much he claims "Bran" is gone and he's now the all-seeing voyeur of Westeros. Such a notion is evident in how Bran let the North be in the hands of his sister, Sansa Stark. He somehow still values what his noble house worked hard for and wanted for the North.
Besides, the Starks never had any bad reputation in Westeros and were some of the most genuinely good nobles in the continent. Having a Stark as king of six kingdoms is a good move since all other houses have proven to be failures in ruling King's Landing one way or another. Bran, of course, is still a Stark in name and has a proper claim to both the North and King's Landing.
HE HAS NO ARMY (BAD)
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun— or in this case, the pointy end of a sword. In order to have political leverage and impact, a king will have to have an army of his own that is loyal to him. Such a case has been proven time and again throughout our history and even in Westeros. A lord is nothing without an army at his back.
Since Bran made the North independent, the Northmen soldiers all belong to Sansa, leaving him with nothing in King's Landing. What's stopping another great lord with a sizable army from marching into King's Landing and usurping the throne. Also, good luck recruiting an army from King's Landing's commoner pool; all that's left of them are ashes.
HE DOESN'T DESIRE POWER (GOOD)
If there's one thing that the failed kings (and queens) of Westeros taught us, it's that power will always corrupt. Even a seemingly ideal savior with three dragons who freed slaves quickly became a tyrant (unbelievably so). Hence, Varys the Spider is right in his decision on who would have made for a great ruler in Westeros.
It's usually the people who don't want anything to do with power (political, military, or dragons) that are perfect for authority. Bran, again, as the Three-eyed Raven wants nothing more than to be a glorified CCTV camera for Westeros. That would be discrediting his "importance," but all in all, Bran appears to have no desire for power or influence. Happy now, Varys?
HIS DEEDS ARE LAME (BAD)
Being a king is quite similar to electing a president these days. The candidates usually have to have an impressive portfolio of accolades to let people know they're right for the job. For kings, apart from heritage, it's usually heroic deeds which win the people over. Because no matter how royal a king is, if he's pitiful and unworthy, someone will always want to take that throne.
Now, what are Bran's heroic deeds which make him worthy as a king? Let's see... okay, let's not torture ourselves further; Bran's got nothing on his Targaryen cousin. Jon/Aegon died and came back to life, saved countless wildlings, became Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, became King in the North, survived countless battles and several wars, spearheaded the war against the Night King, and even killed a tyrant. But hey, let's make Bran king because people will probably love him more than Jon, right?
HE WAS ELECTED "DEMOCRATICALLY" (GOOD)
Samwell Tarly was way ahead of his time for the feudal minds of the Westerosi nobles. He became a laughingstock when he suggested the first notion of democracy to the other lords and ladies. For some reason, however, when it was Tyrion who suggested something similar, it was somewhat acceptable? Anyway, Bran won the throne by a landslide victory and was voted by the remaining key nobles of Westeros to rule the six kingdoms.
While this was still far from what we consider democracy these days, Bran's coronation still happened with a vote. There's also the fact that Tyrion specifically mentioned that succession to the crown from that point on will not be inherited but elected. Essentially, this makes Bran the first prime minister of the six kingdoms of Westeros.
HE'S NO LEADER (BAD)
A king is not necessarily a good leader, but it seems Westeros (save for the North) is really unlucky with its kings. Bran is no exception. No matter how you look at it, Bran is not a leader, much less a good one. Almost no one (not even fans of the show) likes Bran. One would have to be a Stark or Tyrion Lannister to even have an affection for the Three-Eyed Raven.
He inspires nothing—not loyalty, not joy, not honor. Other than that, Bran seems to be insultingly unappreciative of all the sacrifices people (Osha, Summer, Jojen, Meera, Hodor) have made just so he would become the Three-Eyed Raven. Still, to be fair, most prime ministers these days are not too far off from Bran.