What's funny about this, and really only speaks to how awful D&D are as showrunners, is Edmure's claim was pretty accurate and he made a pretty strong case for taking the crown. The only thing invalidating that is "lol, Edmure's a pussy" fanservice.Chimpzy said:
If the North pressed for independence (and they did) the Riverlands would become the definitive strategic grounds of all Westeros. To a certain degree they already were, but Northern independence means the Riverlands sits on the border between two independent countries, and occupying all land routes (meaning trade) between the two. Plus, the sole remaining heir to the Frey's lands is Edmure's son, meaning the Tullys directly control one of the two major thoroughfares between the North and South.
Not to mention, Edmure has blood relation to Sansa which would make him a key strategic and diplomatic player in relations between North and South. And -- the important piece -- remember hostageship is not necessarily shameful in and of itself, and any shame that would be a consequence of it would fall to the now-defunct Freys for having violated guest right. Hostageship was an important part of diplomacy and negotiation, and to be held hostage (as opposed to captive) imparted a certain sense of goodwill towards hostage and "captor"; the Lannisters would have been viewed as having liberated Edmure from captivity, and Edmure would be obliged to them.
In other words, relations between the Lannisters, Riverlands, and North could be normalized immediately, and within a generation a marriage between Edmure's son and a Lannister daughter would have elevated that relationship to a formal alliance. Which would have been absolutely key to the North's strategic situation vis-a-vis the Ironborn: an independent North means a North that can be reaved relatively free of consequence, absent a Lannister fleet or intervention from the Redwyne Navy.
And, since the North pressed for independence and that claim was honored, a Stark king all but guarantees Dornish and Ironborn claims for independence sooner or later (probably sooner), especially since both involved Great Houses pledged themselves to Dany. Better to allow them to secede peacefully, and lean into strengthening relations between the remaining kingdoms; an arranged marriage between Gendry's and Bronn's heirs, means a marriage between a Baratheon-Bronn heir and Tully-Lannister heir unifies all remaining kingdoms and Houses at once, since Tully, Arryn, and Stark are all already allied by blood and marriage.
Assuming Bronn can press his claim to the Reach and hold it against an inevitable Redwyne rebellion.
But, back to Edmure. The only people who knew he fucked up at Stone Mill died in the War of Five Kings. To everyone else, it was a major victory against one of the most fearsome and reviled landed knights of the realm. As far as surrendering Riverrun, it was clear Brynden had lost and was refusing to capitulate beyond reason; the rest was simple negotiation and obligation, which reflects no particular shame on Edmure himself. The two people that know the truth behind it are Edmure himself, and Jaime who is dead.
Putting Edmure on the throne was actually the smartest move, politically, for the long-term stability of the realm. Sansa was, once again, a bona fide idiot for not even considering it. Or rather, D&D are bona fide idiots for expecting their audience to chortle like hyenas, not even recognizing for themselves the implications of their own "comedic relief".
Certainly smarter than an ascension that reeks of the same nepotism that caused the war in the first place, that all but ensures an even bigger, deadlier war shortly thereafter.
