According to another answer about the ending of Game of Thrones, Bronn gets Highgarden:

Kingdom of the Reach - Unknown Ruler: Bronn; Highgarden is part of the six kingdoms; Bronn was given highgarden as payment of the Lannister debts.

This was of course part of the deal the Lannister boys made with Bronn so he wouldn't kill them. The remaining Lannister does not seem to have the power to give away other kingdoms.

It seems very likely that King Bran has agreed with Bronn getting Highgarden? Is this somehow explained in the series?

In particular, Bronn seems a bad choice because he does whatever monetary incentives are in play. If anyone, Bran would know that Bronn just does what whomever pays the most tells him to do

This is not a duplicate of Did Tyrion even have the authority to do this?, which asks about Tyrion's power. I am asking about why the King agreed to this, or if that's not clear from the series.

  • 4
    Bran wanted peace, so it seems he doesn't mind distributing kingdoms
    – Ankit Sharma
    May 20, 2019 at 14:16
  • Good question! Tyrion no longer has the authority to give away high garden.. atleast not a kingdom/place that produces so much money !
    – Anu7
    May 20, 2019 at 14:16
  • 8
    "The remaining Lannister does not seem to have the power to give away other kingdoms." He's Hand of the King, the second most powerful person in the Six Kingdoms... he has the power to do this. The Hand effectively rules. May 20, 2019 at 14:25
  • 1
    @Gabriel please put that as an answer. It seems plausible to me and at least as an answer it can properly be voted on to get some community consensus.
    – JJJ
    May 20, 2019 at 15:58
  • 1
    I've updated my answer to provide facts, links, quotes, and a parallel with the recent history of the Riverlands. This material was heavily referenced in the book, and was considered important enough to be included in the show. This is no merely a matter of speculation--of all the Great Houses of Westeros, the Tyrell claim is considered the weakest.
    – DukeZhou
    May 20, 2019 at 20:26

4 Answers 4


The core answer is simple and related to the status of the Tyrell as stewards, not the original descendants of Garth Greenhand. The last hereditary ruler of the Reach, King Mern IX, died at the Field of Fire, along with his heirs.

  • Because the Tyrells are not the hereditary rulers of Highgarden, Tyrion knows he can install a new Lord.

The Tyrells have no more hereditary claim than Bronn!

  • Olenna relates that of all the great houses of Westeros, the Tyrell claim is the weakest.

"If truth be told, even our claim to Highgarden is a bit dodgy, just as those dreadful Florents are always whining."

—Olenna Tyrell to Sansa Stark

A Storm of Swords, Chapter 6, Sansa I.

"The Tyrells were only stewards that the dragon-kings had upjumped far above their station. Their vanity was exceeded only by their ambition."

—thoughts of Cersei Lannister

A Feast for Crows, Chapter 3, Cersei I.

This is similar to Lord Littlefinger being given Harrenhal--a massive fortress unclaimed by any great Lord. This allows Tywin Lannister to take it from the Whents and give it to Janos Slynt, via Cersei, and Tyrion to subsequently give it to Littlefinger, without resistance or controversy. This awarding of the castle comes with proclaimed control over the Riverlands, an usurpation of House Tully, still a great house but without a link to a mythical founder.

This is mentioned in the show, the books and the supplementary materials. Here's a link from Wiki of Ice&Fire.

  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – DukeZhou
    May 20, 2019 at 19:38
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – DukeZhou
    May 21, 2019 at 16:52
  • I've been pressed on "Why does the Crown (now Bran) allow this?" 1. Bran seems to be able to see the future to some degree. 2. Tryion has earned a special dispensation for his service to the realm (re: influencing John to kill the tyrannical Dany and proposing Bran and electoral monarchy) 3. It really doesn't matter all that much who rules the Reach, and Bronn will be no worse, and actually better, than most Lords because he was born a peasant.
    – DukeZhou
    May 21, 2019 at 19:45
  • Why Bronn's elevation is advantageous to the crown: If an established lord, such as a Florent, were granted control of the Reach, they might cause trouble, b/c they have the base of their ancestral estates, and blood ties to other noble families. Bronn's power derives entirely from the throne, and so Bronn's loyalty to the throne is more assured than a previously established Lord.
    – DukeZhou
    May 23, 2019 at 16:40

At this point in the story, the world has been in a very bloody and long war. One that has destroyed great houses. One that has killed thousands of innocents. Bran's immediate goal is peace.

Why Bronn?

Right now, loyalty is what Bran needs the most in order to fix and rebuild Westeros. Tyrion, Brianne, Davos, and Sam have all been shown to be highly loyal subjects to their respective kings. They have all shown they want a better world.

Bronn, for all his faults, is a smart man. He played the game and managed to rise in the ranks from a common sell sword to a knighthood and eventually a Lord. Most importantly, he is very loyal to whoever pays him the most. He even shot down a dragon and saved Jaime's life when he could have easily ran off. The Crown is paying him Highgarden and a slew of other titles. Nobody else in Westeros can offer him more. His loyalty may be bought, but loyalty is loyalty and that's all that matters.

Can Bronn be flipped?

Bronn has never worked for someone who could not keep his promises. Tyrion and Jaime were both in positions which could pay precisely what they offered. Cersei, at the time, was also capable of paying, but Bronn flipped when it was becoming increasingly apparent that she may not be able to come through after all.

But what could a usurper offer Bronn that he doesn't already have? Hand of the King? That actually seems to be a rather terrible deal. Bronn may not actually want that title as it has been shown many times how terrible being the Hand can be. Besides, regicide is a difficult task, especially when your target literally knows everything.

At this point, Bronn has everything he wants. He has his lands, titles, and castle. He will work to ensure he keeps all of it.


I really don't think there is any logical reasoning behind why they did this.

I think David and Dan (showrunners) just didn't care or put much thought into it. I think they gave him the title just to have that scene with him sitting at the table with the King's council at the end.

Unless you're going to tell me that every major and minor House in the Reach was killed I don't see any logical reason to give Bronn Highgarden. He has no men following him or a House. He has no loyalties to anything except gold. I am sure they could find a person to lead the Reach and agree to help rebuilding the capital. He literally threatened Tyrion for that position and Tyrion while he is the King's Hand I don't think he is dumb enough to trust Bronn with a title like holding Highgarden.

And that doesn't even start to question if any of the minor houses in the Reach to allow someone like Bronn to take over. I have a hard time believing they would allow a sellsword to simply take over one of the more wealthy castles and holdings in all of Westeros.

Even if all the major and minor Houses in the Reach were killed I still have a hard time believing that other major and minor houses throughout the South half of westeros would even agree to Bronn getting Highgarden. Maybe they would be ok with giving Bronn Harrenhal since giving Harrenhal is treated as somewhat of a joke since it is passed around so often, if I am remembering that right from the books.

Overall it doesn't make a lick of sense. The showrunners love Bronn and gave him more screen time than he probably needed. It was just the showrunners wanting him in the last scene to get a laugh from the audience.


The only surviving Lords or Ladies of the Reach will be of houses that either:

  1. Fought for Olenna and House Tyrell defending Highgarden against the Lannisters, but surrendered quickly enough to survive, then fought with the Lannisters against Dany and co, but surrendered again, bending the knee to Dany the first time they were asked.
  2. Betrayed Olenna and House Tyrell by joining Randyll Tarly and the Lannisters, to (as Dickon Tarly described it) fight and kill people people they'd grown up with, hunted and suppered with; then, surrendered to Dany at the first opportunity and bent the knee.
  3. Somehow managed to hide from or avoid these wars completely.

It's probably fair to say that anyone in these category is not exactly cream of the crop - and it would be easy for someone politically astute like Tyrion to make a compelling case that they are not someone to trust.

Tyrion could make a case that Bronn is smart, effective, and, if well rewarded, reliable - and if not well rewarded, dangerous. He can make a case that any rival is untrustworthy or weak.

Bran, if interested, can use his powers to confirm that this is true - but also, King Bran isn't particularly interested in the detail of politics. He walked out of the small council meeting at the first opportunity, and put Tyrion in charge of political wrangling as a punishment.

In the absence of any better candidates, it seems reasonable that Tyrion could make this case.

  • use his powers to confirm does he not know everything like we know things? He doesn't really have to work to find a particular memory, right?
    – JJJ
    May 20, 2019 at 16:33
  • 3
    It's not 100% clear but I think he only knows what he's looked up and he often underestimates the gaps in his knowledge - for example he didn't know about Rhaegar and Lyanna's wedding until Sam told him about it, which prompted him to go and watch what happened; and this episode, he didn't know where Drogon was, so he went to investigate May 20, 2019 at 16:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .