Why One King ?

[Erkan12]

I'm wondering, after death of Mad king and targeryans, why they are continue to one kingdom system ? This is legacy of dragons, before that as we all know there are 7 kingdom. If they turn that 7 kingdom system, there is no war like greyjoy rebellion or war of five kings, many people and houses died because of this, why lord jon arryn, ned, robert didn't think this after the mad king ? And bend the knee to baratheons and lannisters with no reason.

when i'm thinking about this, the usurper is fitting to robert and baratheons...

[Downright Daario]

One King means peace, with seven kings there would be a massive amount of in-fighting.

[FuriousGeorge]

One King means peace, with seven kings there would be a massive amount of in-fighting.

Surely a joke?

ETA - @OP I'm not sure the political institutions of Westeros are really responsive to regime changes. Once the idea of 'One Kingdom' becomes embedded after Aegon there probably weren't many potential kings who would be happy to relinquish any portion of that kingdom.

[The Prince of Ice]

One King means peace, with seven kings there would be a massive amount of in-fighting.

One King surely does not mean peace, look back in time when numerous leaders have combined areas or Kingdoms when the people didnt want it. Look at Nigeria for example the British forced several different religious and ethnic groups to live together, this lead to civil war when the British left. The workd of ice and fire works the same.

[Andrea Darling]

I'm wondering, after death of Mad king and targeryans, why they are continue to one kingdom system ? This is legacy of dragons, before that as we all know there are 7 kingdom. If they turn that 7 kingdom system, there is no war like greyjoy rebellion or war of five kings, many people and houses died because of this, why lord jon arryn, ned, robert didn't think this after the mad king ? And bend the knee to baratheons and lannisters with no reason.

when i'm thinking about this, the usurper is fitting to robert and baratheons...

Because people are power hungry, and which of the throne's many contenders would have wanted to settle for just a piece of Westeros when they thought the whole thing was up for grabs?

Except Robb, I mean. He would have been quite happy as King in the North...before the...unpleasantness...

[thecryptile]

The North has shown it's fine with the idea of going it alone, the Vale and Dorne have seceded for all intents and purposes already. The collapse of the Iron Throne and a return to sovereignty of the Lords Paramount doesn't seem that far fetched. There would be war between the restored Kingdoms, but that is nothing new.

[kiasyd]

Indeed, I'm a believer of a divided realm in the end of the series. As I said in another thread and quoting from romance of three kingdoms:

(...)anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide.

[Lady Arwen]

I too believe that the end result will be a division of the kingdoms, with Dany sitting the Iron Throne. :leaving:

[Fat Mac]

The division of Kingdoms has advantages. For instance, when a war goes on, it is usually localized. For example, if the Iron Islands attacks the Westerlands, it is up to the Westerland forces to stop them, and everyone else can stay out of it.

I'd like to see almost every region be it's own kingdom by the end, except where the North will combine with the Riverlands and where the Stormlands will combine with the Crownlands, therefore recreating Seven Kingdoms.

[mindchap]

Because when left to themselves the lower six kingdoms fight like cats and dogs. Just like they are right now. The more fighting there is the more people die. When there is one King then the lords have a higher power to appeal to without all the smallfolk suffering every time there's a misunderstanding.

[PrimeRhaegar]

because they are institutionalized about having one kingdom for 300 years made no sense in changing it. Especially since they kingdoms used one currency and traded with each other more now.

[Stag Country]

I'm wondering, after death of Mad king and targeryans, why they are continue to one kingdom system ? This is legacy of dragons, before that as we all know there are 7 kingdom. If they turn that 7 kingdom system, there is no war like greyjoy rebellion or war of five kings, many people and houses died because of this, why lord jon arryn, ned, robert didn't think this after the mad king ? And bend the knee to baratheons and lannisters with no reason.

when i'm thinking about this, the usurper is fitting to robert and baratheons...

The answer to your question is: Plot.

[Mine Is Not The Fury]

Because when left to themselves the lower six kingdoms fight like cats and dogs. Just like they are right now. The more fighting there is the more people die. When there is one King then the lords have a higher power to appeal to without all the smallfolk suffering every time there's a misunderstanding.

This, pretty much.

[Jordouche]

One king is more peaceful. No doubt about it.

If the seven kingsdoms went back to being seven kingdoms, they would literally be at constant war. The wars would be smaller, but literally in constant state until one kingdom is destroyed.

With one king the worst that will happen is a rebellion every once in a while and then it's back to normal.

If Cersei and Robert had legitimate children the war of the five kings wouldn't have even happened.

[DaveSnow House Stark]

If there is one kingdom and ran properly with a just King, then yes one is fine. If ran poorly and certain areas of the kingdom are neglected and mistreated then you get a rebellion.

As to why it didn't go back to 7 kingdoms after Roberts rebellion, if you just faught a war and the prize was to be THE King, are you going to be quick to give it up? History is full of people who had good intentions but once in power they couldn't let go.

[Syphon the Sanitator]

Because people are power hungry, and which of the throne's many contenders would have wanted to settle for just a piece of Westeros when they thought the whole thing was up for grabs?

This. It's really that simple.

[Volantene Republican Army]

It's worth recalling that the Targeryens didn't have 'working' Dragons for a while, since they started getting progressively smaller. Even if Dragons forged the united kingdeom, I think people would still follow the Tagaryen dynasty out of habit, even without dragons. Also because the status quo of one king worked for enough people that they would make an effort to keep it going.

However, once you destroy the legitimacy of the original dynasty by putting a new house on the throne, you'd have a lot of lords starting to wonder why they should follow the throne at all. Lord Karstark's speech where he declares Robb the new King in the North is a good example of this. The old Targaryen kings would have been able to keep the kingdom together in the face of any uprising through sheer force of dragon fire. Not having this option, the current Lannister crown is thus forced to keep its position by politics. This consists of essentially sharing the crown with Highgarden in what Varys calls the Great Western Alliance. The might of this alliance is enough to bribe (Dorne and the Vale) or bully (the Riverlands) into going along with things. The North is a bit of a special case since the Western Alliance has a more imperial policy of ruling a foreign land by installing a loyalist.

It’s worth noting that this is a very unstable arrangement. The second that any of these houses thinks that its best interests lie elsewhere it’ll pull out of the arrangement. And if that happens, the whole thing will fall like a house of cards.

Probably if you were to extrapolate the situation, the Lannister-Highgarten alliance wouldn’t be able to keep it together, and eventually a successionist North or Dorne would pull out. Leading to further successions. And then the fracturing of the united kingdom.

Or so I think at least.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

It's worth recalling that the Targeryens didn't have 'working' Dragons for a while, since they started getting progressively smaller. Even if Dragons forged the united kingdeom, I think people would still follow the Tagaryen dynasty out of habit, even without dragons. Also because the status quo of one king worked for enough people that they would make an effort to keep it going.

However, once you destroy the legitimacy of the original dynasty by putting a new house on the throne, you'd have a lot of lords starting to wonder why they should follow the throne at all. Lord Karstark's speech where he declares Robb the new King in the North is a good example of this. The old Targaryen kings would have been able to keep the kingdom together in the face of any uprising through sheer force of dragon fire. Not having this option, the current Lannister crown is thus forced to keep its position by politics. This consists of essentially sharing the crown with Highgarden in what Varys calls the Great Western Alliance. The might of this alliance is enough to bribe (Dorne and the Vale) or bully (the Riverlands) into going along with things. The North is a bit of a special case since the Western Alliance has a more imperial policy of ruling a foreign land by installing a loyalist.

It’s worth noting that this is a very unstable arrangement. The second that any of these houses thinks that its best interests lie elsewhere it’ll pull out of the arrangement. And if that happens, the whole thing will fall like a house of cards.

Probably if you were to extrapolate the situation, the Lannister-Highgarten alliance wouldn’t be able to keep it together, and eventually a successionist North or Dorne would pull out. Leading to further successions. And then the fracturing of the united kingdom.

Or so I think at least.

I fully agree with you. The realm was united under the Targaryrens solely due to the fear of their dragons, and once their dragons were gone they were still considered "special" by some in Westeros. Plus, the great houses were still quite happy with their current arrangement, but the moment any of the houses began to have a problem with the Targaryens there would have been rebellion, as evidenced by Robert's Rebellion. Robert's Rebellion would have been quite a different situation if the Targaryrens would have still had dragons.

One king only means peace when that king has a super weapon to force the other kingdoms into submission.

[Tumnas the Torpid]

To all whom insist that the Seven Kingdoms were more peaceful before the Conquest: please, consider the Ironborn. Before Aegon put an end to the Old Way, the men (and maybe women?) of the Iron Islands raided all over the continent of Westeros, all year round, reaving and raping as they pleased. Do you want to live in a world where you are in constant danger of being murdered or taken for a thrall, or a world wherein the price of general law and order are periodic dynastic wars?

This does not even take into account all the other constant lower-level warfare that was taking place, such as the thousands of years of border disputes between the Reach, Stormlands, and Dorne, or the seemingly persistant conquests of the Riverlands. Take off your blinders.

[Chaircat Meow]

Listen to the Roose: one king may be terrible, but four (or seven)?

More of a deterrent to scumbags.