Will the system of nobility survive the series?

[Lady Arianne Martell]

Do you think these various houses will survive the series or do you think that the whole system will go away? I have a feeling the "House" system might disappear.

[Viserys - The last dragon]

Yes, I do believe it will "survive". Something like that does not disappear over night.

[Mladen]

Over the past weeks, I have come to the conclusion that we are going to see fundamental changes in Westeros society. Whether it will be brought by apocalyptic events such as Others' invasion, or the raise of awareness among the commonfolk, Daenerys playing "agent of change" role or even some player destroying the system, thing is, we are moving towards the change...

This certainly won't happen over night, but we are being slowly led to this. The entire conundrum of Wo5K moved the boundaries of everything. The dissatisfaction throughout the Kingdom in chaotic system is visible, and between pretenders who are ravaging Westeros, the peace is something that we can't see coming soon. But, that is the point... First we have introduction to the corrupt system led by powerful Houses, and then those Houses went like vultures on each other, hungry for power. They knew no limits... Every sacred law in Westeros was broken: kinslaying, guest right, etc. etc... But, as the end of war approached, we saw things changing. Faith got armed, people in Riverlands grew sick of all highborns, on the North we saw something that hasn't ever happened - wildlings and Northmen uniting, and on far east, we see Daenerys abolishing and destroying systems. We are introduced by the new pretender, "an enlightened monarch" whose task is to bring the peace. The need for "Alysanne of ASOIAF" is very real. In that situation, where the pot is shaking from boiling, things are bound to get changed...

I doubt we will see some complete, radical change. But many things will change. Nothing will ever be the same. We won't see democracy, Kings won't be chosen by voting, but the system that is currently enforced will be changed. Who will do it is another question. As was pointed in one of the not-so-recent threads, Dany showed power and ability to change, but not to reform and maintain the new systems. On the other hand, Jon is someone who is thinking about long-term prosperity and peace... So, is that the answer? Fire to change, ice to preserve... Dany as revolutionary hero, Jon as the stable King? We will see... But, all and all, things will change.

[Waters Gate]

The political/social systems that are possible are somewhat limited by the technoligy/means of transportation and comunication of the day. In that sense, when it comes to empires, it kinda demands for decentralization, having more power on the local level than centralized governship from the capital. the 7 kingdoms are to big for a king with his administration to adminster from Kings landing, so they have to allow the Lord paramounts to have a lot of power.

For what regards republics in this enviroment, it seems somewhat apparent that they are more limited to smaller states, mostly city's state's our nations centered around one. they are noble or merchant republics, meaning that only the upper class vote's anyway. trying to have republicanism/democracy with universal suffrage would be a whole different thing, and impossible to do on the level of the whole of Westeros surely.

Still, its kinda weird. That is the reasons why democracy's/republics seem rather inpossible at this point for Westeros are practicly the same as they would have been for much of Feudal europe. Lack of technoligy and development to some extend but i guess there must be other reasons. Because there have been empires before them that could administer to a higher degree, in our world these were empires like the roman empire, in the Asoiaf world that would have been more the empires of Ghis and Valyria long ago.

Where lies the difference that allowed the Romans or the Valyrians to have better administration? Litteracy and education maybe? Though afcourse for what regards the roman empire the extend to which she was a republic and not a factual decentralized feudal state might be somewhat debatable.

I guess if things change, even if we get some republicanism, then it's more likely because things will start to break up, and the rot process in Westeros seems to have been going for a while already. If someone in Westeros wants a republic, i'd guess it would start as a smaller nation within Westeros rather than to encompass it. For what regards local "national sentiments", they seem rather very strong too. Many culture's withing Westeros consider themselfs so distinct and have have beef with other culture's withing the realm as a whole (some sort of cultural racism exists) to the point that its hard to keep the 7 kingdoms toghether. It obviously makes it more likely to have civil wars like that, and the unifying factor that forced the issue , the dragons, are gone. The dragons can come back, but will people in Westeros ever assimilate into 1 culture, rather than have 7 culture's and 3 religions which in many cases have beef with eachother?

I don't think it looks good in that respect for Westeros, if things change politicly because of the failure of the nation that is the 7 kingdoms, then i think disintegration is far more likely.

If one would like progressive change in Westeros, i think it's required then that it's people would focus more on whats beyond it's boundery's, go east and west and all over the world in the exploration of new things and idea's. It was East meeting west that spurred change in the west to a large degree. The idea'd that Europeans picked up for ex. from Muslims during crusade's our trough the silk route were afaik of instrumental nature to the development of high medieval culture and later the renaisansce. More conquest in the east? More trade with the east? Maybe though trough danny a lot of easter influence's will mingle with western ones.