Why Bran as King would be a terrible idea

[BlackLightning]

13 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I’m sure Bran will play a role in stopping the others, but if they don’t make it past winterfell it’s tough to see how he’d do so in a manner that really impresses everyone.

Girl, the Others are going to make it past Winterfell. Stop playing. Their zombies will probably start making appearances south of the Neck before the Others themselves make it south of the Neck. The magic of the Others precedes them.

This is what bothered me about the show.

12 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting it’s hard to see how Bran could become KITN. It’s becoming king of everywhere else that’s difficult to imagine. 

Dany’s path is very straightforward. She doesn’t need to win an election. She has a claim to be the rightful heir and three dragons to back it up. Jon’s case is different since he’s in the Watch, there’d always be doubts about his paternity and legitimacy, but he at least may have a claim to being the rightful heir and is in a position to take a leadership role against the Others (and also may have a path to become KITN via Robb’s will).

If Jon Snow becomes Jon Stark, the King of the North (very likely seeing as Bran is unlikely to get back to Winterfell in time for his presence to invalidate Robb's will), then Dany can just marry him to consolidate the power structure of the realm.

Daenerys Targaryen and the North are natural allies. Unlike Stannis, Renly and Balon, neither Daenerys nor Jon are stupid/stubborn enough not to join forces. They are both young and attractive so there's no reason why they wouldn't want to make it all the more official.

As the husband of Daenerys, Jon Stark gains a lot of legitimacy and attention. Should news about his maternity, paternity and legitimacy come out, then Jon easily goes from the king consort of Queen Daenerys Targaryen and King of the North in his own right to King of the Seven Kingdoms.

16 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

No one knows who Dany is yet.

This is not true.

This is why Daenerys' path to the Iron Throne is so clear and straightforward. Everyone knows that Queen Rhaella had given birth to a girl on Dragonstone and that both Prince Viserys and the babe (named Daenerys) were taken across the Narrow Sea and hidden. These are not secrets. These are facts: the Queen had crowned Viserys King on Dragonstone and announced that the newborn princess would be his heir.

The reason why no one sweated Daenerys was because she was a girl. Had she been born male, it'd be a different conversation.

[The Sleeper]

6 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting it’s hard to see how Bran could become KITN. It’s becoming king of everywhere else that’s difficult to imagine. 

It isn't really. He takes the North and the North takes everything else. Between the disarray enveloping everything, his powers and the role he would have in defeating the Others it is not that much of a stretch. 

That said I don't see him as the occupant of the Iron Throne. It is incongruous and it is not where his power lies. But he is by far the most natural candidate for ruling the North as king or Lord. 

12 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Dany’s path is very straightforward. She doesn’t need to win an election. She has a claim to be the rightful heir and three dragons to back it up. Jon’s case is different since he’s in the Watch, there’d always be doubts about his paternity and legitimacy, but he at least may have a claim to being the rightful heir and is in a position to take a leadership role against the Others (and also may have a path to become KITN via Robb’s will).

Dany might well rule the seven kingdoms. But if she does it will be because she conquers them. It will have nothing to do with her claim.

Jon does not have a plausible road to kingship. Robb's will was made on the belief that his siblings (cousins) were dead which they are not. Nor do I believe that this his role int the story. 

18 minutes ago, Nathan Stark said:

No one knows who Dany is yet. But her appeal as a Targaryen will have real pull when she finally arrives. Like it or not, there are many houses in Westeros that continue to be Targaryen loyalists, who would have considered supporting Viserys's claim. House Redwyne, for instance. Or House Martell, possibly. There will certainly be more southron houses willing to support Dany's rather strong claim than there will be those willing to support a ten year old crippled boy.

That is somewhere between theory and speculation. Oberyn wanted to rebel but that was fifteen years ago. As far as I can tell house Redwyne only cares about its wealth. The only case that could be made is maybe is about maybe Darry, Rowan and the dudes at Cracklaw point. Still noone in Westeros declares for Dany, fights for her, swears fealty to her or schemes to put her on the throne.

[BlackLightning]

43 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

It’s becoming king of everywhere else that’s difficult to imagine. 

Meh. Not really.

If all of the other big heroes (i.e. Dany and Jon) die, if the Iron Throne and all contenders are destroyed and Bran is one of the few survivors who played a MAJOR role in the downfall of the Others, then yeah.

I can see why people would be okay with him being king. And it's not like Westeros will have the strength for yet another civil war anyway. Sure, there might be some grumbling but -- given that it's very unlikely for the Long Night and winter to just end once the Others are beaten or whatever -- no one is going to pitch a fit.

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

3 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Girl, the Others are going to make it past Winterfell. Stop playing. Their zombies will probably start making appearances south of the Neck before the Others themselves make it south of the Neck. The magic of the Others precedes them.

I’m not a girl, but I do agree with you that the Others should make it past Winterfell.

[Rose of Red Lake]

4 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

You can't have have both. You aren't going to have an ending where one Stark is ruling the Seven(???) Kingdoms on a very conditional basis and the other Stark is ruling the North as an damn-near absolute monarch. At the same time. That was a product of fanservice.

I don't get this. Please explain it to me like I'm 5 (no large fonts necessary).  If the Stark ruler in the south is conditional, wouldn't that make the Northerners even more inclined to declare independence and support a Stark in the North? Like if they know that a Martell or Tully could rule in the next term, why would they join the 7k if they want a Stark?

[Alyn Oakenfist]

4 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't get this. Please explain it to me like I'm 5 (no large fonts necessary).  If the Stark ruler in the south is conditional, wouldn't that make the Northerners even more inclined to declare independence and support a Stark in the North? Like if they know that a Martell or Tully could rule in the next term, why would they join the 7k if they want a Stark?

Constitutional and elective are not the same thing. And if GRRM goes for elective monarchy then Westeros is fucked

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Constitutional and elective are not the same thing. And if GRRM goes for elective monarchy then Westeros is fucked

An elective monarchy either means anarchy or (more commonly) becomes hereditary in all but name.

[SeanF]

11 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

Name one person currently in Westeros who wants to make her Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. OK, there is one, Varys but he is hardly typical. 

Regardless of what place Targaryens hold in people's heads, I does not involve Dany and it certainly did not involve Viserys who was a fucking joke. 

Dany is a force to be reckoned with, but not through any clout she has in Westeros.

Bran does not have a hill to climb. He is the current head of hose Stark. Which makes lord of Winterfell and for a considerable number of people king in the North. 

To put in perspective in the most succinct terms possible. Bastard member of the Night's Watch, deposed exile, head of House Stark. 

Well, Sarella publicly drank a toast to her in Oldtown.  In all likelihood, there are plenty of pro-Targaryens in Dragonstone, Driftmark, Claw Island and across the Crownlands, as well as in Kings Landing.  The decision whether or not to side with her will turn on how committed any lord is to the regime in power on her arrival, and how likely he judges her chances of victory.

In real life, quite a lot of deposed exiles have regained thrones.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

An elective monarchy either means anarchy or (more commonly) becomes hereditary in all but name.

Really? What examples do you have of it becoming hereditary? The HRE is the only kinda one, but that was less an elective monarchy and more a loose confederation of states where the most powerful was granted a meaningless title. And even then you can easily take the HRE if you have more then 4 provinces and you ally/royal marriage/improve relations with enough electors and don't incur any aggressive expansion

And either with the PLC which was a proper elective monarchy or with the HRE, the result is the same, a pitifully weak central government with no control over it's theoretical realm.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Really? What examples do you have of it becoming hereditary? The HRE is the only kinda one, but that was less an elective monarchy and more a loose confederation of states where the most powerful was granted a meaningless title. And even then you can easily take the HRE if you have more then 4 provinces and you ally/royal marriage/improve relations with enough electors and don't incur any aggressive expansion

And either with the PLC which was a proper elective monarchy or with the HRE, the result is the same, a pitifully weak central government with no control over it's theoretical realm.

The HRE was powerful under the Ottonians, or Hohenstaufen.

Wessex and England were technically, elective monarchies, pre 1066, but they had long become hereditary.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The HRE was powerful under the Ottonians, or Hohenstaufen.

Not saying elective monarchy immediately develops into anarchy, but in due time it does, the PLC being the best example

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Constitutional and elective are not the same thing. And if GRRM goes for elective monarchy then Westeros is fucked

Braavos seems to be doing well enough with it? I mean...its not perfect but, its working for them.

My question about why Northern independence is illogical under this scenario is still unanswered. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Rose of Red Lake said:

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Constitutional and elective are not the same thing. And if GRRM goes for elective monarchy then Westeros is fucked

Braavos seems to be doing well enough with it? I mean...its not perfect but, its working for them.

My question about why Northern independence is illogical under this scenario is still unanswered. 

Several things

- Braavos is a merchant republic not a Kingdom. Not really the same thing

- Far more importantly, the Braavosi merchants don't hold the amount of power Westerosi nobles do. A feudal Kingdom depends on it's nobles to fall in line for it to function militarily and administratively. A merchant republic has all the military and administration centered on the Dodge (yes, yes he's called the Sealord, but let's face it, he's the Dodge), therefore the running of the state won't be sabotaged by him being elected by the nobles

[Rose of Red Lake]

16 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Several things

- Braavos is a merchant republic not a Kingdom. Not really the same thing

- Far more importantly, the Braavosi merchants don't hold the amount of power Westerosi nobles do. A feudal Kingdom depends on it's nobles to fall in line for it to function militarily and administratively. A merchant republic has all the military and administration centered on the Dodge (yes, yes he's called the Sealord, but let's face it, he's the Dodge), therefore the running of the state won't be sabotaged by him being elected by the nobles

Is it impossible for Westeros to be slightly less feudal then? Tyrion and Arya touring around the free cities is definitely showing how backwards Westeros is about some things. 

Westeros doesn't even have a magna carta, so without that, it sure seems like the IT has more power than the nobles. Westeros limiting the power of its monarchy would be progress. 

If they need a check on nobility, give the members of the Citadel a say (like the keyholders in Braavos). Or start a new institution of builders and give them some role in governance. This is probably more achievable if its just Stormlands, Reach, Crownlands, Riverlands, Vale. Start small and more will join in. I think Jon's assessment that people will eventually voluntarily support Stannis if they aren't being forced to, is good advice on a larger scale. Bran will know this too. 

[The Sleeper]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well, Sarella publicly drank a toast to her in Oldtown.  In all likelihood, there are plenty of pro-Targaryens in Dragonstone, Driftmark, Claw Island and across the Crownlands, as well as in Kings Landing.  The decision whether or not to side with her will turn on how committed any lord is to the regime in power on her arrival, and how likely he judges her chances of victory.

In real life, quite a lot of deposed exiles have regained thrones.

The point was to illustrate that, compared to Dany and Jon whom probably most of the fans expect to reign in Westeros in one form or another, Bran is better set up to rule something as he already possesses both a title and a power base. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, The Sleeper said:

The point was to illustrate that, compared to Dany and Jon whom probably most of the fans expect to reign in Westeros in one form or another, Bran is better set up to rule something as he already possesses both a title and a power base. 

No he doesn't. At best he has the North. SweetRobin will die quite soon, and Sansa will not marry Harry the Heir (at least if the Ashford theory is correct) so the Vale will not support him, while the RIverlands are a smoldering wreck, support from there means nothing. To be fair Jon's powerbase would not be much better, while Dany would rely on mostly anti Aegon Reachmen lords, primarily the Tyrells., and of course her massive armies and her dragons. Jon too can rely on that, presuming he gets a dragon that is.

[The Sleeper]

27 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No he doesn't. At best he has the North. SweetRobin will die quite soon, and Sansa will not marry Harry the Heir (at least if the Ashford theory is correct) so the Vale will not support him, while the RIverlands are a smoldering wreck, support from there means nothing. To be fair Jon's powerbase would not be much better, while Dany would rely on mostly anti Aegon Reachmen lords, primarily the Tyrells., and of course her massive armies and her dragons. Jon too can rely on that, presuming he gets a dragon that is.

You are contradicting yourself. 

These facts from the books. He has these things whereas Dany and Jon do not. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

SweetRobin will die quite soon,

Booooo. Sweetrobin is hilarious. He would support Alayne over Dany, unlike his ancestor who got tricked into giving up his kingdom for a dragon flight. And if he did take a ride he would push Dany off her dragon because he's obsessed with people falling. 

[BlackLightning]

17 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't get this. Please explain it to me like I'm 5 (no large fonts necessary).  

I'm sorry about the large fonts if they are bothering you. No disrespect. I do it not only because of passion but for the purpose of highlighting the bigger points. I know my posts can be long a lot of times so if you're just scrolling through, I don't want you to miss the larger point I was making.

If the Stark ruler in the south is

conditional...

But yeah, I'm going to stop you right there. That's the problem. An elective monarchy is a recipe for disaster. The whole reason why Euron Greyjoy is now King and is continuing to terrorize the people of Westeros is because of elective monarchy. And then there are people like Littlefinger and Varys and Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton who would seize control of the government or outright sabotage it behind closed-doors so that the elected monarch is a mere puppet. And then there are people like Obara Sand and Greatjon Umber and pretty much all of the wildlings who would rather have open war and chaos than a monarch that they didn't elect rule over them.

The Stark ruler (or, for that matter, any ruler) should not be ruling conditionally as an elected ruler. Not without strong legislative and judicial bodies. Westeros needs years and decades of iron-fist-in-velvet-glove stability. Republicanism and federalism can do that but a true democracy cannot. Westeros has to get to constitutionality and/or absolutism before they can get to republicanism.

A constitutional monarchy is a much better idea for the end of the series. If you throw in a bicameral parliament with the highborn and the lowborn having a say, it's an even better idea. It actually makes a lot of sense because Daenerys is going to be as anti-serf as she is anti-slavery. And Jon is already halfway aboard the anti-serfdom train. The First Men, in general, are pretty anti-serf too. It's the Andals that's the problem.

But yeah. An elective monarchy is a bad idea. It creates more problems than it solves.

wouldn't that make the Northerners even more inclined to declare independence and support a Stark in the North?

No.

Because that would mean abandoning one Stark to the south in favor another Stark who has decided to stay closer to home. It is not within the character of the Northmen to shrug off the family of their liege. You're getting the bad writing of the show mixed up with the canon of the books.

Have you read the books? They lost the War of the Five Kings badly but they are still fighting and praying for the return of the Starks. Not just for one of the Starks. For all of them. Why? Because in the books, the North remembers. In the show, the North tripped and fell, forgot, complained, betrayed, offered weak apologies after the fact and then complained and forgot all over again.

If one Stark has become the King of the Seven Kingdoms, there's no reason why the North, the Riverlands or even the Vale wouldn't throw all of the support behind him/her.

Like if they know that a Martell or Tully could rule

in the next term, why would they join the 7k if they want a Stark?

They would want a Stark. That's why they would join/stay. They would also want a Tully too for obvious reasons. Edmure and all of House Tully is kith and kin to the Starks.

But whatever. Let's say you're right. You still got problems.

Because if the North can declare themselves independent and go freely, why can't Dorne? Why can't the Iron Islands? Why can't the Westerlands?

If the North feels that strongly about going, Dorne and the Iron Islands have no reason to stay either. Dorne not only was its own kingdom but they can take care of themselves better than the North can take care of themselves. The Iron Islands have been fighting for independence and self-autonomy longer and harder than the North has. They deserve it more than the North. And frankly, provided they abandon the Old Way, they can also take care of themselves better than the North can.

The North is an absolute mess as of the end of A Dance with Dragons. The human wars and intrigue there is making it worse come The Winds of Winter. And they are going to be on the frontlines of the invasion of the Others in A Dream of Spring. By the end of the series, it'll be more of a graveyard than a kingdom. 

The North going independent at the end of the series just like the Riverlands deciding to become its own independent kingdom right after the War of the Five Kings. How sway?

If the North goes, then Dorne and the Iron Islands go. They have less reason to stay than the Northmen did. And once Dorne and the Iron Islands go, the West, the Stormlands and the Reach will follow suit.

The natural conclusion of letting the North self-determine and choose independence is that the Seven Kingdoms reverts to what it was before the Targaryen Conquest.

That's fine. But letting the North do what it wants and not letting the other regions do the same is massively unfair. And it's an abuse of power. One that will be avenged if that elected monarchy system is allowed.

Westeros needs a Magna Carta before they can get to a Republican constitution. They are more likely to get a Magna Carta that stands the test of time with a Stark dynasty. If they get a Magna Carta and it's passed around from this candidate to that candidate, it won't last.

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No he doesn't. At best he has the North. SweetRobin will die quite soon, and Sansa will not marry Harry the Heir (at least if the Ashford theory is correct) so the Vale will not support him, while the RIverlands are a smoldering wreck, support from there means nothing. To be fair Jon's powerbase would not be much better, while Dany would rely on mostly anti Aegon Reachmen lords, primarily the Tyrells., and of course her massive armies and her dragons. Jon too can rely on that, presuming he gets a dragon that is.

Your whole issue with @The Sleeper is based on the Ashford Theory. There have been so many holes poked in the Ashford Theory. Just because Sansa doesn't marry Harry the Heir doesn't mean that she will go south and marry Aegon. She could still rally the Vale to her side and go north to Winterfell.

But why would you think the Vale would not support Bran Stark. They were begging Lysa to let them avenge Ned Stark, Robert Baratheon and Jon Arryn, to let them join Robb Stark, to let them avenge the Red Wedding...for years. Why would they forget that?

 

[Rose of Red Lake]

2 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

A constitutional monarchy is a much better idea for the end of the series. If you throw in a bicameral parliament with the highborn and the lowborn having a say, it's an even better idea. It actually makes a lot of sense because Daenerys is going to be as anti-serf as she is anti-slavery. And Jon is already halfway aboard the anti-serfdom train. The First Men, in general, are pretty anti-serf too. It's the Andals that's the problem.

I think AU Dany's "break the wheel" nonsense might be influencing you. How is Dany going to be anti-serfdom when she's sick of the Meereense smallfolk after ruling there for a few months? How is she a radical when it comes to feudalism? From what we've seen, she is a Valyrian supremacist like her brother. She wants Westerosi systems to stay in place so she can have absolute power. Instead of many voices she just wants one voice, her own. She is not a person to advance a pluralistic society or uproot a system that undercuts her own family's power. She wants to return to the same systems Westeros had under Aerys. She also shows no curiosity about why that system failed. If she doesn't see it as a failure in the first place, how is she going to learn how to do anything differently? I also think Jon is going to be manipulated into supporting Daenerys like many readers have been. 

Quote

But yeah. An elective monarchy is a bad idea. It creates more problems than it solves.

I still don't see why having a hereditary monarchy solves the problems you mention. People being manipulated into electing a tyrant is still something that happens in the modern-era, so if we can't solve that, I doubt Westeros will. The more important thing seems to be to limit the power of the monarchy so that if someone does use it to grab the reigns of power to do something sinister with it, the power is so limited that it doesn't do much damage. I think Westeros needs more pluralistic institutions so power can be diffused, rather than accumulated. And the stability of the state depending on a Stark to pop out kids is quite risky. A process for non-hereditary succession with a limited executive, check on power, and rule of law seems a better bet to me.