Jump to content

What House would be the most fit to rule the Seven Kingdoms?


John Doe

Recommended Posts

To those saying Lannisters, LMAO.

aside from Tyrion, the Lannisters are terrible rulers, Tywin included.

To be a good ruler, you simply have to have compassion. It is literally impossible to be a good ruler without it. If Tywin ever had compassion, it died with Joanna.

Tywin was a selfish cunt, plain and simple. He would do whatever was necessary in an attempt to defend his legacy, yet at the same time his actions completely tarnished his own legacy, and ensured that no one (aside from that idiot Pycelle) would remember him as a good leader. Most would think of him as a soulless cunt who'd burn whole villages of innocents just to prove a point. That's not being a good or strong ruler. It's being a dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the ruler/s in question are far more important that the house they come from as we have seen medium and bad rulers (some even disastrous) in every single house.  In terms of what house's main ideas and principles are better suited for the role I think they all have positives and negatives too, or positives that can turn into negatives in certain circumstances.  The Starks emphasis on honour for instance is great but Ned's strict adherence to that principle led to civil war.  The same goes for the pragmatism and strong rule the Lannisters stand for but that pragmatism can be way too ruthless and, as a house, they seem to care little for the small folk as they call their vassals.  The Iron Born are certainly a no, no, since their culture involve basically raiding, although not saying that a member of this house could not turn out suited for a different ruling style.  The Targaryens, regardless of who is the monarch, seem to almost exclusively derive their power from their dragons, so if the dragons die out again they would need more than that.

Geographical considerations, the different houses abilities to raise loyal armies at short notice and how they are perceived by the other kingdoms are of course fair points though.

Still, although strong marriages amongst various houses could live a ruler vulnerable to becoming influenced and manipulated by his/her consort's house I still believe that in this pre-parliamentary system is one of the easiest ways to keep the different kingdoms in check and collaborating with one another, of course without putting "all the eggs in one basket,"  i.e. not making all the important marriages, say Lannister/Stark or Lannister/Tyrell etc but spreading the heirs amongsts the houses.

Now, what I think it will happen, even if Dany or Jon or both end up in the throne, say, is that there would be a very powerful and diverse Council who will keep the monarchy (if a monarchy is indeed the ending) in close check.  I could see a lot of the main characters who survive in that role.  I don't think there will be a Parliament as such but I think there has to be modernisation.  I could be wrong but it would seem pointless to concoct this super complex story to end it simply with a Targaryen restoration or with say the Starks avenged and in power.  George has put a lot of effort and time into all the houses and I am inclined to believe that regardless of who is monarch (or whatever name the ruler takes in the end) all the different houses will be represented.  My personal guess is not a full parliament but a precursor institution to one but we shall see.  This would in any even would be my preferred option.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Graydon Hicks said:

i have to say targaryen. all the other houses still identify themselves by the region they are from. tyrells are still reachlords, baratheons are still stormlords, starks are still northerners. but the targaryens are an outside, relatively impartial house. where they other house have a sense of regional patriotism, what you can get of that in a medieval age culture, with all the cultural prejudices that regional identity engenders, the targaryens, at least when they began the conquest, lacked any of that. sure, their ideals may not always be what we would want, but neither do they have any of that regional favoritism. that helped unify the other kingdoms, either under them, or before them, but it lead to the targs being seen subconsciously as a symbol of unity for the realm as a whole.

in fact, i think thats why the realm fractured as quickly as it did when robert died. for 20 years, with no targ on the throne, no realm recognised symbol of unity, still subconsciously, the kingdoms began to realign their sense of self from WESTEROSI, to REACH, or NORTH, or STORMLANDS, ect.

 

Smart answer.  I will have to accept and agree.  Regional bias gets in the way of unity.  House Targaryen.  Second choice is Velaryon if they still had the wealth and power during the time of the Sea Snake.  While the Sea Snake himself would not make for a good ruler because he is like Ricard with his mind on outside matters.  Corlys would be a rather neglectful ruler.  But there are others in his house who could make fine monarchs of the land.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of House Lannister, allow me to say this.  Yeah, the realm might prosper but it will happen at the expense of justice.  Tywin would be a skilled tyrant, but a tyrant nonetheless.  He may spend the first years of a Lannister reign Castamering some of the dissenters.  After that there will be no more dissentment.  Only bottled up resentment.  He could pay off the debts to the foreign banks.  He could quell rebellions.  He could restore order.  But justice would be hard to come by.  Tywin is too much focused on the glory of house Lannister to be an unbiased ruler of seven kingdoms.  He is best serving the ruler instead of ruling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snow is the man said:

The lannisters would eventually fall because they are only allowed to rule because they are feared and once someone that was in anyway soft or just not brutal came into power you would have everyone in the kingdom who has a hatred of lannisters now have a chance to take their revenge.

Many people hate the Lannisters for what they did to the Reynes and the Tarbecks.  But you know Hoster Tully did almost as bad with the Goodbrooks when that family refused to follow his rebellion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Enzo Ferrari said:

Many people hate the Lannisters for what they did to the Reynes and the Tarbecks.  But you know Hoster Tully did almost as bad with the Goodbrooks when that family refused to follow his rebellion.  

Did he?  I missed this one in the books but I have to agree.  All in all there have been bad or cruel (or both) rulers from every single house I can think of but I guess that is true of every family in real life too ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Did he?  I missed this one in the books but I have to agree.  All in all there have been bad or cruel (or both) rulers from every single house I can think of but I guess that is true of every family in real life too ;)

 

The Goodbrooks stayed loyal to their king after Tully called his banners to join Robert and Jon Arryn.  Tully destroyed the Goodbrooks' village to punish them for remaining loyal to their king.  I have to clap my hands for Petyr Baelish because he gave back to the Tullys what they deserved.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Enzo Ferrari said:

The Goodbrooks stayed loyal to their king after Tully called his banners to join Robert and Jon Arryn.  Tully destroyed the Goodbrooks' village to punish them for remaining loyal to their king.  I have to clap my hands for Petyr Baelish because he gave back to the Tullys what they deserved.  

Thanks for the detail, I had completely forgotten.  Still Hoster yes he forced Lysa to have an abortion (although at the time I suspect most high lords would have done), wasn't in good terms with his brother (apparently for reasons he had forgotten about) etc so perhaps not the most sympathetic Tully   The thing is I don't think Petyr was purposely trying to pay back the Tullys for what they did to the Goodbrooks but for the fact that he was snubbed by Hoster for not being high born enough though and Cat, Ned and I guess their children for Cat's rejection.  I love his complexity (although hate who he is) because he is clever and pragmatic but a lot of his moves are routed on the fact that we was looked down on.  Incidentally Lord Frey seems to have the same issue with Hoster as LF, i.e. that he would not marry his daughters or sons to his offspring...  I guess the message here is that, although pride may serve you well in some instances, it can be your downfall (or that of your house) in others.

Now, back into the main topic, one of my points is that (I am going to exclude historical rulers in ASOIAF) since I am not well versed enough in them, that I cannot see any one individual currently living character (or even the recently dead ones) fit to rule alone.  A lot of them could be that sort of "material" but with complementary allies and potential frenemies who could counteract them if getting too big for their boots or making an obvious mistake perhaps fueled by emotion.  Something that comes to mind as an example is how, for instance, Davos had a great tempering influence on Stannis (although not always), how Tyrion for example took charge re wildfire etc (away from Cersei's possible super cock up) etc, and now that you mention LF, hell Robert would not have survived 5 years without LF's ability to make money materialise lol.  It is true to say, though, that any given ruler will have advisors (even the super power power hungry ones) or people who opposed them but are seemingly on their side to counteract most madness or total lack of judgement.  Still, I can see a system at the very end (in the rebuilding) where this is not merely an unspoken arrangement but something with a more solid legal base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Leave the Starks out of it, they want no part of that ugly chair. 

 

Well, the thread is not about who wants it or who is likely to get it even but which house would be best suited.  Okay, suitability may imply willingness to take up the mantle, however the Stark is a relatively large family...  Also whereas Ned really didn't want to be Hand, he took the post (granted because he had little choice and he wanted to help his friend who he believed in danger), still...  Arya, I don't think would take the position (nor is she likely to get it IMHO unless through marriage mayhaps...), Sansa I wouldn't be too sure (she is being currently trained on the game by one of the best players and seems to enjoy at least some of it).  Bran has clearly a different destiny than mundane human politics, Rob is dead but was King in the North, as is Jon in the show and the show runners know the ending...  Jon could get even more than that in both books and show and he would take the role if that is needed to make people fight WWs.  I would not discount the entire Stark clan just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say House Hightower. They don't rule one of the 7 Kingdoms. They are incredibly wealthy but not at the expense of their subjects. They care for their subjects and choose the citizens they are supposed to protect above their king. They are a peaceful people with trade on their mind. They are/could be closely related to both the Citadel and the Faith. The rule the oldest city in Westeros, the second biggest.

 

Lord Leyton would be a pretty shit King but Brightsmile is a good man and a good knight. 

 

The most realistic way the Hightowers would be kings was if KL was destroyed by either Cercei or Dany, the power centre shifting to Oldtown with the North(ern half) of Westeros being ravaged by WW, all Targs dying in the wars and Dorne, the North being independent and the Iron Islanders destroyed for attacking Oldtown. Just kill them all and salt the earth. Or just freeze them all to death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Enzo Ferrari said:

Many people hate the Lannisters for what they did to the Reynes and the Tarbecks.  But you know Hoster Tully did almost as bad with the Goodbrooks when that family refused to follow his rebellion.  

I admit I am basing my opinion on tywin and his essentially unleashing absolute terror on everyone. When he was in the riverlands he essentially told the most horrible people he had to have fun and unleashed them on people who had nothing to do with the war. Robs people did it but he didn't order it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, snow is the man said:

house targaryen. But in my opinion the seven kingdoms should be broken up a little. Let the north have their freedom. (hear me out)

The north is gigantic but given the size it has a very small population and it is not a wealthy part of the kingdom. And they are weak enough alone that they couldn't attack the rest of the realm. By doing this you have less space to govern and are able to focus your forces alot more. If a rebeliion pops up anywhere you can get soldiers there relatively quickly. The north also has a different religion then the rest of the realm and different customs so seperating them would make it easier.

 

The iron islands need to be occupied by the crowns soldiers to make sure they can't continue to raid and cause trouble. They always seem to be doing something stupid.

If not targeryan then highgarden if you let dorne have it's freedom (again very small country that can't rise against the rest of the realm).

I think barathoens are bad rulers given what we have seen.

Tully-to weak

The lannisters would eventually fall because they are only allowed to rule because they are feared and once someone that was in anyway soft or just not brutal came into power you would have everyone in the kingdom who has a hatred of lannisters now have a chance to take their revenge.

There's no reason to think the Lannisters would fall. The Lannisters had Tytos Lannister for a while and the West didn't rise in sudden rebellion against Casterly Rock. Now the Lannisters were moving in the direction of destruction under Tytos but everyone didn't drop what they were doing and attacked House Lannister.

I see no reason to think that everyone would drop everything to dedicate their existance to House Lannister's destruction. A great deal of Stannis men abandoned him on the Blackwater and both Reach and Stormland lords fought for Joffrey and then Tommen without much poblem following Stannis' fall. There are simply no reason to think that hatred for House Lannister is some kind of top priority for everyone. I CAN be a factor but one factor among many others to determine a lord's actions.

6 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

To those saying Lannisters, LMAO.

aside from Tyrion, the Lannisters are terrible rulers, Tywin included.

To be a good ruler, you simply have to have compassion. It is literally impossible to be a good ruler without it. If Tywin ever had compassion, it died with Joanna.

Tywin was a selfish cunt, plain and simple. He would do whatever was necessary in an attempt to defend his legacy, yet at the same time his actions completely tarnished his own legacy, and ensured that no one (aside from that idiot Pycelle) would remember him as a good leader. Most would think of him as a soulless cunt who'd burn whole villages of innocents just to prove a point. That's not being a good or strong ruler. It's being a dick.

Aside from Cersei, the Lannisters would make execellent rulers. What you need to do is not to take sadistic urges to public and constant releases. We have seen this many times that having compassion is not enough to rule well. Compassion didn't stop the Faith Uprising, compassion didn't prevent the Blackfyre Rebellion and compassion didn't get the Greyjoys to sit nicely on their islands. Now compassion can be a valuable trait but its not a game breaker as you would imagine and many poor rulers have had compassion while many good rulers have done pretty well without being rememered as some compassionate sweetheart.

And as much as it might pain you to see, Tywin is not the same as House Lannister.

6 hours ago, Enzo Ferrari said:

On the topic of House Lannister, allow me to say this.  Yeah, the realm might prosper but it will happen at the expense of justice.  Tywin would be a skilled tyrant, but a tyrant nonetheless.  He may spend the first years of a Lannister reign Castamering some of the dissenters.  After that there will be no more dissentment.  Only bottled up resentment.  He could pay off the debts to the foreign banks.  He could quell rebellions.  He could restore order.  But justice would be hard to come by.  Tywin is too much focused on the glory of house Lannister to be an unbiased ruler of seven kingdoms.  He is best serving the ruler instead of ruling.  

There's no reason to think that justice would suffer more under House Lannister than under House Targaruen or House Baratheon. The history of House Lannister does not show some great trend of tyranny beyond what is the norm in Westeros. Nor have the Targaryens acted much differently with say the Blackfyre Rebellions and they didn't get thrown down because of it.

And as much as it might pain you to see, Tywin is not the same as House Lannister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Aside from Cersei, the Lannisters would make execellent rulers. What you need to do is not to take sadistic urges to public and constant releases. We have seen this many times that having compassion is not enough to rule well. Compassion didn't stop the Faith Uprising, compassion didn't prevent the Blackfyre Rebellion and compassion didn't get the Greyjoys to sit nicely on their islands. Now compassion can be a valuable trait but its not a game breaker as you would imagine and many poor rulers have had compassion while many good rulers have done pretty well without being rememered as some compassionate sweetheart.

First I never said compassion is the only trait required to rule well. Its not. Far from it.

i said its impossible to be a good ruler without compassion, and that holds true. Tywin didnt have compassion, so if he was in power himself as King, there was never any remote chance he would make a good one.

Robert had compassion, but he lacked other skills necessary for a good ruler.

Tywin had many other traits that rulers need to have, but not the one that separates a ruler from a tyrant.

Now, having compassion doesnt mean you will be remembered as a sweetheart or arent capable of reprehensible and vile actions. Good rulers and bad rulers alike can be ruthless.

Robert had compassion, but could still be a total asshole at times and was a horrible peacetime king.

Tyrion has compassion, and likewise can also be ruthless, but I think he would make a good ruler were he given the chance, but he will never because he doesnt inspire most people. The revile him and many think of him as a freak. People arent going to follow or accept someone astheir ruler if they repulse them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LordImp said:

Tyrell

Best choice, they seem like the most sane of the lot. On top of that, they have a very progressive view of things, and always invest in the future and now just the now like many short sighted Westeros Lords.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...