I can’t figure out how anyone in the South would willingly accept Bran as king if the North participates in burning/sacking KL. It’s one thing if it’s a right by conquest deal, but the show has Bran being chosen. Yet, wouldn’t the North, and the Starks, be viewed with suspicion/hostility for harboring a hidden Targaryen (Jon) and siding with a Targaryen conqueror (Dany) who ruthlessly murders half (or more) of KL’s population? (Not anti Bran! I’m just trying to understand the implied endgame!)
You do address a big problem there : the war crimes committed by the Northerners which we actually saw on screen and which were never punished. Neither the Northerners nor the Unsullied got a trial for the Sack of King's Landing. It was just Jon who was punished for killing the rightful Queen when she was neither a Queen nor rightful, but a conqueror and tyrant....
Iirc at least in the books it is understood that the commander of the army in question is responsible. The Lannister soldiers sacked King's Landing during Robert's Rebellion but Tywin never was held accountable. It was just that the people in KL hated him afterwards. It might be one of the reasons why the Tyrells are praised for the relief of King's Landing when Stannis attacked and not the Lannisters who did more.
So, I would say it depends on who was seen to be the Commander of the troops? If it was Dany, she is dead, if it was Greyworm he has KL under his thumb, if it was Jon, he actually gets a trial, just not for the crime he was an accomplice to, but for the act of liberation that saved the remains of King's Landing... - which makes no sense.
To make some sense you have to argue that a) Bran managed to distance himself sufficiently from his cousin b) that despite Varys' letters nobody knew about RLJ and probably everybody just saw Jon as another bloody bastard or c) that the Lords just did not care for the thousands of victims.... The last one even has some backing in canon with Sam being laughed at!
Actually, I think that choosing Edmure Tully would have made more sense. He is a friend of the Smallfolk, was not involved in the whole mess and has ties to the Eyrie and to Winterfell and no ties to Targs.
If you look at real medieval royal elections Edmure would have been the likeliest candidate. Sorry, not sorry.
I have said it before, in a 'realistic' medieval setting Bran's election makes no sense. His election would make sense in a world which is powered by magic, where magic is respected, where wise wizards are seen as natural leaders or in short in a world that definitely is not Westeros...
Anyway, I hated that they all brushed over the war crimes. Jon should have killed Dany for the victims, it should have been the killing of a tyrant. And everyone involved in the crimes - including Tyrion - should have been held accountable. Or if not, it should have been addressed that the Unsullied held them all at gunpoint.
Alas! Men like Cregan Stark would have been needed, but instead we got this sorry excuse for a great council....
