What kind of government will Westeros have by the end?

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

This will be far in the future after the ice recedes and spring has returned to most of Essos and Westeros.  Western Essos and Southern Westeros will become a glorious empire under the rule of Empress Daenerys Targaryen.  The Free Cities will choose to remain free after they contribute to the fight against the Others.  The north of Westeros, ever the troublemakers, will choose independence and they will pay with their lives when the Others arrive.  The Starks will take side with the Others to survive and they will be the only power left in the north. 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

27 minutes ago, King17 said:

And of course a constitutional monarchy would have a constitution that benefits nobles not the common people

True, but as opposed to elective monarchy where the power of the nobility would just grow and grow due to their control over who is the next King, with a constitutional monarchy, eventually the merchants and the church would buy their way into being a part of the constitution, opening the floodgates from there on.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

23 minutes ago, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Western Essos and Southern Westeros will become a glorious empire under the rule of Empress Daenerys Targaryen.

Yes, we know you think Dany will rule, that's not the question. The how is the problem. "Empire" can mean anything from Roman and Byzantine semi democratic principate, to Mongol warlordism, to British constitutional monarchy. So what do you mean by it?

[King17]

32 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

True, but as opposed to elective monarchy where the power of the nobility would just grow and grow due to their control over who is the next King, with a constitutional monarchy, eventually the merchants and the church would buy their way into being a part of the constitution, opening the floodgates from there on.

Might happen of course it depends on who gets to vote to change it if it is the 7 great houses then maybe not.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

7 minutes ago, King17 said:

Might happen of course it depends on who gets to vote to change it if it is the 7 great houses then maybe not.

I mean if it's just the lords in general it'd still be trouble.

If the faith and the merchants are properly represented however, even without a majority then you wouldn't have Poland, you'd have the HRE which while better, is stil pretty bad.

[King17]

7 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I mean if it's just the lords in general it'd still be trouble.

If the faith and the merchants are properly represented however, even without a majority then you wouldn't have Poland, you'd have the HRE which while better, is stil pretty bad.

I think in a westeroes style system it would mainly just be lords.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

18 minutes ago, King17 said:

I think in a westeroes style system it would mainly just be lords

Me too, in which case you get Poland, with the nobility fighting and succeeding to enforce feudalism and stifle trade as late as the 18th century, not allowing things like manufacturing to come in, less it threaten their grip on power.

[El Guapo]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[King17]

45 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Me too, in which case you get Poland, with the nobility fighting and succeeding to enforce feudalism and stifle trade as late as the 18th century, not allowing things like manufacturing to come in, less it threaten their grip on power.

Seems like all options kinda sucks maybe a pure monarchy isn't a terrible option after all.

[Lord Lannister]

Whatever government the Others have.

[CamiloRP]

10 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

British Empire ensured only the right administrators were in official posts. The Royal navy dominated the globe mainly because officers and administrators were chosen by merit and birth.

Napoleon and Genghis Khan promoted officers based on skill and not blood.

The East india company conquered India not because of their strength at arms but because they unlike their European rivals, understood how to mingle with the people and how to gain their trust. This is possible because only men of merit were allowed, not men of birth. Portugal was kicked out of several indian territorys because it tried to forcefully convert the indians to christianity. The French and spanish tried the same thing with other territories in the globe. This was because the usual aristocrat zealot was allowed in high posts. Whilst the british empire ensured men of both merit and birth were promoted.

This is a meritocracy, where only the educated and certain intellectuals are allowed these posts. This ideal was born due to the english civil wars and the continuation of a government ran by parliament and not the king. 

Everything about the British empire screams meritocracy it isnt that hard to see.

I think we already agreed that it is not a government. 

The Empire of China was an absolute monarchy and it still had meritocratic ideals. It appointed ministers and officials due to education and skill. 

That's not merit tho, not purely at least, the people who 'made merit' could do so because they had better opportunities than most people in that society. That's what Alyn says when he says meritocracy is an ideal, it's imposible to reach.

[The Young Maester]

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

That's not merit tho, not purely at least, the people who 'made merit' could do so because they had better opportunities than most people in that society.

The concept of merit was invented a long time before we were around. So im not sure we have the right to say “that” is not a meritocracy when the whole concept was invented centuries ago and was used by empires and kingdoms for a millennia.

Since the Middle Ages (atleast in Western Europe), any men from either low to high birth could attend universities. So everyone had the chance to rise high. The only issue is that they were very expensive so it wasnt always the case that a lowly peasant entered but it still happened.

It is not so different to today. In most countries you have to pay a hefty fee to attend uni, and if you can’t afford it or don’t want to go into debt than that is your doctorate degree gone. True enough today is much easier to succeed in life than in the 19th century, however that is only because of the technological, social, and economic limitations these old nations had compared to today.

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

That's what Alyn says when he says meritocracy is an ideal, it's imposible to reach.

That quote is an explanation why the British empire was a meritocracy, not whether a meritocracy is an ideal or not.

Merit is what allowed men like napoleon to rise through the ranks and eventually become a general and later emperor. This was because France was no longer an absolute monarchy, but a revolutionary mess.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

14 hours ago, King17 said:

Seems like all options kinda sucks maybe a pure monarchy isn't a terrible option after all.

Well yeah, absolutism, fir all the shit it gets was a decent enough system as long as the King wasn't weak or insane. The problems started when he was.

[Dreadscythe95]

Absolutist Monarchy

Constitutional Centralized Monarchy

Something between these two. Martin is a big history geek and he always wrote ASOIAF with a historical accuracy so the only logical step is this one. Probably both with that line. 

 Independent States

This is a big step back and it doesn't make sense for the story.

 Elective Monarchy

This is a fairytale-like ending with no real-life realism that the show came up with. I would be very dissapointed if Martin concluded the story like that.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

15 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Something between these two. Martin is a big history geek and he always wrote ASOIAF with a historical accuracy so the only logical step is this one. Probably both with that line

Yeah I tend towards this too. Like the current set up has two major problems

- The Lords Paramount are far too powerful, excerting way more loyalty than the King (with the exception of the Tullys and maybe Tyrells) with the King dependent on them.

- For all that, there are no checks or balances against the King except all out revolt.

The system is basically geared for civil war. So to solve those two, a more absolutist monarchy, though with some constitutionalism to prevent another Aerys seems to be the right course.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The system is basically geared for civil war. So to solve those two, a more absolutist monarchy, though with some constitutionalism to prevent another Aerys seems to be the right course.

And what kind of cosntitutionalism would be able to get an Aerys down the throne? I mean, he was mad. Insane. What, they'll get a constitution that if a mentally sick dude sits on the throne next time they can overthrow him? Who will decide he's mad? A great council? What if he has no heirs? What if his entire dynasty has no heirs? Who can give a diagnosis in Westeros? These are pretty big problems. The cure for this was pretty simple. Kill the man already, or let him die on the throne. I don't get why people of Westeros chose none of these two solutions. I mean, if anyone would've gave a damn about the realm, they would've killed him, honestly. Isn't it better than getting into a plot that is as big as the continent? And of course later into war too.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Daeron the Daring said:

And what kind of cosntitutionalism would be able to get an Aerys down the throne? I mean, he was mad. Insane. What, they'll get a constitution that if a mentally sick dude sits on the throne next time they can overthrow him? Who will decide he's mad? A great council? What if he has no heirs? What if his entire dynasty has no heirs? Who can give a diagnosis in Westeros? These are pretty big problems. The cure for this was pretty simple. Kill the man already, or let him die on the throne. I don't get why people of Westeros chose none of these two solutions. I mean, if anyone would've gave a damn about the realm, they would've killed him, honestly. Isn't it better than getting into a plot that is as big as the continent? And of course later into war too.

The idea of constitutionalism isn't to depose the King, because then we go into the elective monarchy debacle, but rather to limit him, by taking control of the taxes and the justice system away from him mainly, like in medieval and renaissance England

[CamiloRP]

10 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

The concept of merit was invented a long time before we were around. So im not sure we have the right to say “that” is not a meritocracy when the whole concept was invented centuries ago and was used by empires and kingdoms for a millennia.

Since the Middle Ages (atleast in Western Europe), any men from either low to high birth could attend universities. So everyone had the chance to rise high. The only issue is that they were very expensive so it wasnt always the case that a lowly peasant entered but it still happened.

It is not so different to today. In most countries you have to pay a hefty fee to attend uni, and if you can’t afford it or don’t want to go into debt than that is your doctorate degree gone. True enough today is much easier to succeed in life than in the 19th century, however that is only because of the technological, social, and economic limitations these old nations had compared to today.

That quote is an explanation why the British empire was a meritocracy, not whether a meritocracy is an ideal or not.

Merit is what allowed men like napoleon to rise through the ranks and eventually become a general and later emperor. This was because France was no longer an absolute monarchy, but a revolutionary mess.

Yeah, but meritocracy being an ideal, no country/kingdom/nation/whatever could be a true meritocracy. A poor person would more than likely remain poor no matter how hard they worked, and a rich person would remain rich no matter how little they do, like it happens today 

[King17]

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well yeah, absolutism, fir all the shit it gets was a decent enough system as long as the King wasn't weak or insane. The problems started when he was.

What you really need is a process for removal if the king is insane or cruel and selfish.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

Yeah, but meritocracy being an ideal, no country/kingdom/nation/whatever could be a true meritocracy. A poor person would more than likely remain poor no matter how hard they worked, and a rich person would remain rich no matter how little they do, like it happens today 

But this isn't about wealth, it's about the position you receive for your given skills. That means that you had that position because you were worthy to hold it, but your descendants might not be, so they wouldn't inherit your position, but your wealth is your own property, while your position isn't. 

This can be imaginable within guilds and such things, but there's nothing like that currently. Remember that Aegon V tried to give several rights to the smallfolk, and got called a tyrant. Currently, Westeros is far from being able to counter its feudal overlords, and the entire culture is built on how much blood is worth (several thousand years old houses anf dynasties).

But there are offices that's system are built on a meritocratic idea. Such as the Small Council (or at least it's supposed to be working that way), and the Citadel.