What kind of government will Westeros have by the end?

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

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.

What about Federal Monarchy in the vein of Holy Roman Empire? If anything, current situation should reduce to loss of powers of the throne, since it is quite obvious there is nothing backing up Iron Throne's authority.

[The Young Maester]

2 hours 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 

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of meritocracy.

It’s a plain and simple method of hiring someone because of their skills and abilities, not for their social status and money.

Meritocracy is basically looking at a recruitment pool and picking this nobody that is a talented individual. The opposite of meritocracy is when lets say the army promotes this officer because he is the son of the duke of some rich land. Meritocracy is when they ignore favouritism and instead go for the best man for the job.

One good example is napoleon. The man came from a very poor Corsican nobility, and was somehow elevated to general. Under the french monarchy this would never happen.

2 hours ago, CamiloRP said:

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 

If you are giving your hardest and you still remain where you are than that means you arent trying your best.

[The Commentator]

Westeros will have regressed to a primitive hunter-gatherer people.  Nobles will be no more.  Everybody who stays in Westeros will be primitives who live in small tribes and villages.   The Starks will survive as dire wolves until they too succumb to starvation.   Westeros will return to its pre-human state.

Daenerys will continue to fight the slavers in Essos.  This is how she will spend her time while Westeros is chilling.  Her campaign to free the slaves will take decades and her dragons will have time to grow.  I am of the opinion that these people will migrate to the west and repopulate Westeros. Mhysa, like Moses, will lead her people across the Narrow Sea to Westeros.  The sea level will be low enough to cross the land bridge into the west like a parting of the seas. 

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

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 in most cases you would be worthy of holding the position because of privilege. Because to access education you need money, and to access the chance to prove yourself you need contacts. A poor orphan would have no chance, no matter how hard they tried.

 

Quote

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.

And the Night's Watch, but it's a lie. The Citadel you can only access if you can support yourself during your time there, and you'll do way better if you had a better education beforehand. And in the Watch... when Jon tried to make it about merit, BM complained a whole bunch.

[CamiloRP]

27 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of meritocracy.

It’s a plain and simple method of hiring someone because of their skills and abilities, not for their social status and money.

Meritocracy is basically looking at a recruitment pool and picking this nobody that is a talented individual. The opposite of meritocracy is when lets say the army promotes this officer because he is the son of the duke of some rich land. Meritocracy is when they ignore favouritism and instead go for the best man for the job.

One good example is napoleon. The man came from a very poor Corsican nobility, and was somehow elevated to general. Under the french monarchy this would never happen.

I know what meritocracy is. But even if you chose some random dude for a position because they where qualified, odds are they where qualified because they had better choices, more opportunities. While a person that worked harder and more, but didn't have the same opportunities, doesn't get chosen, then it's not because of merit.

Let's say you've got two people, a rich kid and a poor kid. Rich kid dreams of being a doctor, so, from an early age, they get great tutors and then they go to the best schools. The poor kid manages to go to school, but they also have to spend time working, helping at home and when they're in the school they can't pay that much attention 'cause they are really hungry and can't do anything about it. They both manage to go to the same medical school. For five years the rich kid dedicates themselves purely to the school (with some socializing spread in). The poor kid spends five years studying while working and continuing to help at home. They both finish school the rich kid at the top of their class, the poor kid around the middle. When it's time to search for a job, the rich kid will have an easier time, and it won't be because of merit.

 

Quote

If you are giving your hardest and you still remain where you are than that means you arent trying your best.

That's simply false. The large majority of people born in poverty die in poverty, the vast majority of people born rich, die rich, that's because the rich people have better choices, better circumstances, you social context influences things, and politics do too. Merit has little to do with it. 

 

[The Young Maester]

42 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I know what meritocracy is. But even if you chose some random dude for a position because they where qualified, odds are they where qualified because they had better choices, more opportunities. While a person that worked harder and more, but didn't have the same opportunities, doesn't get chosen, then it's not because of merit.

You are completely missing the point. That person will never get the post because they never had the sets of skills required. What you are speaking about is literally favouritism which is the opposite of meritocracy.

42 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Let's say you've got two people, a rich kid and a poor kid. Rich kid dreams of being a doctor, so, from an early age, they get great tutors and then they go to the best schools. The poor kid manages to go to school, but they also have to spend time working, helping at home and when they're in the school they can't pay that much attention 'cause they are really hungry and can't do anything about it. They both manage to go to the same medical school. For five years the rich kid dedicates themselves purely to the school (with some socializing spread in). The poor kid spends five years studying while working and continuing to help at home. They both finish school the rich kid at the top of their class, the poor kid around the middle. When it's time to search for a job, the rich kid will have an easier time, and it won't be because of merit.

This is behind the scenes. Hospitals will hire someone thats got better grades. In paper it certainly seems that the rich boy got the better grades and also is more skilful than the poor kid. And still how are the hospitals supposed to know if the poor kid is more skilful than the Rickh kid when the poor kid got worse grades. They don’t know, so they will choose whos got the best grades.

This example is pointing out at a completely different social problem. Meritocracy has nothing to do with this social problem you are referring to. The hospital will choose the best candidate not because of wealth or status but because of merit. This is just the hospital using its meritocratic ideals. It isnt their fault or problem that the poor kid got lesser grades. They just need to ensure the right person for the job is chosen.

Meritocracy isnt “ensure everyone gets the same opportunity”. That is a different social ideology. Meritocracy is “check the recruitment pool and grab us the most skilful candidate”.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

But in most cases you would be worthy of holding the position because of privilege. Because to access education you need money, and to access the chance to prove yourself you need contacts. A poor orphan would have no chance, no matter how hard they tried.

We can't expect free education. Nor can everyone be educated so that people should chose the best out of themselves.

[CamiloRP]

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

You are completely missing the point. That person will never get the post because they never had the sets of skills required. What you are speaking about is literally favouritism which is the opposite of meritocracy.

Yes, but the people who get the post won't do it because of merit, they will do it because of pre-existing social conditions.

 

Quote

This is behind the scenes. Hospitals will hire someone thats got better grades. In paper it certainly seems that the rich boy got the better grades and also is more skilful than the poor kid. And still how are the hospitals supposed to know if the poor kid is more skilful than the Rickh kid when the poor kid got worse grades. They don’t know, so they will choose whos got the best grades.

Yes, I agree, and hospitals should do that, but that's not meritocracy, because the rich kid doesn't have better grades because of merit, he has them because of privilege.

 

Quote

Meritocracy isnt “ensure everyone gets the same opportunity”. That is a different social ideology. Meritocracy is “check the recruitment pool and grab us the most skilful candidate”.

Nah, meritocracy is tied to merit, or at least branded as such, and if there's not equal opportunity there's no way of determining merit.

[CamiloRP]

1 hour ago, Daeron the Daring said:

We can't expect free education. Nor can everyone be educated so that people should chose the best out of themselves.

If you're talking about Westeros I agree (tho the Citadel is free). My point wasn't 'let's make a socialist Westeros.' I was just pointing out how meritocracy can't exist.

[X-Buster]

Government as we know it or as the feudal lords of Westeros knew it cannot exist during an Ice Age.  Those who make believe Jon will be king of Westeros is deluding themselves.  If he is to be king, it will be king of winter, in the form of Night's King 2.0.  Jon is the Judas of the Night's Watch.  He betrayed his brothers-in-arms and Westeros for Arya.  I could see him becoming King of Winterfell but it will be local rule.  He will not be king of Westeros.  That honor will belong to Queen Daenerys Targaryen, who will rule Westeros (less the north) after the end of the Long Night.  

There will be no government during the Ice Age other than petty, local kings with very little power.  They may survive through the Long Night but only a very few will.  They will freeze and starve in their castles just like the common people will.  And then the doors will be open for Dany's return to her Westeros.