A Parliament for Westeros

[Craving Peaches]

Would it be a good idea for Westeros to have a parliament, like the English Parliament prior to the Act of Union 1707 or another historical equivalent?

It could help reign in the excesses of the power of the King and stop arbitrary abuse of power...

[Many-Faced Votary]

The implementation of a parliamentary system would be a logical and excellent step following a true absolute monarchy, not a feudal monarchy.

Now that Aerys II has been deposed and the precedent of removing tyrannical kings has been established, it is the nobility whose power must be checked.

I know there are complexities such as the twincest, and equalizing all the claimants is unfair and illogical, but the War of Five Kings is in no small measure a problem consequent of weakening the crown to empower each separate fief. 

I tend to believe that unification is best for Westeros, thematically and historically, and most importantly, a lot better for the commoners.

[Alden Rothack]

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Would it be a good idea for Westeros to have a parliament, like the English Parliament prior to the Act of Union 1707 or another historical equivalent?

It could help reign in the excesses of the power of the King and stop arbitrary abuse of power...

no

The english parliament worked because there were members from all three estates and when working well it helped the king check the power of the magnates, westeros has no comparable traditions

the closest they could come would be something like the witangamut and thats only going to have one from each region

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I tend to believe that unification is best for Westeros, thematically and historically, and most importantly, a lot better for the commoners.

The issue is that no one in power cares about the rights of commoners. Aside from maybe the Faith, but putting the Faith in charge has its own set of issues.

7 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Now that Aerys II has been deposed and the precedent of removing tyrannical kings has been established, it is the nobility whose power must be checked.

The issue here is that unlike in England where usually an event like this would be followed by the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights 1688, the nobles seem to have no wish to have a document which sets down limits on the King's authority. It is a bit weird. You'd think they'd want to do that after getting rid of Aerys. But no...

[EggBlue]

24 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Would it be a good idea for Westeros to have a parliament, like the English Parliament prior to the Act of Union 1707 or another historical equivalent?

It could help reign in the excesses of the power of the King and stop arbitrary abuse of power...

they're not there yet.

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

they're not there yet

Perhaps not.

[Curled Finger]

These lords are such scheming bunch only out for themselves, their agendas.  I don't think there is much hope for Westeros at all with the current power structures regionally, forget overall.  Maybe that nut bag Euron will do a good thing if he's able to knock a few of the real players out of the game.  Aegon too, if he gets the chance. 

Seems to me this is what is happening in Winds, or at least the set up for it.  The Riverlands, the North, even the Iron Islands and the Wall are in or about to be in serious upheaval.  This could be a very good thing.  We don't need more Mace Tyrells or Roose Boltons running things.  We definitely don't need more Lannisters in charge of big things or Freys in charge of anything.  Westeros needs a good old fashioned revolution.  Well that and some wide spread literacy programs.  Maybe some health care.   Westeros cannot get there until the bozos in charge get gone and the systems change from top to bottom.  

Put Marge in Charge.  At least she cares about feeding the poor and orphans.  

Spoiler

there is no spoiler, my mouse just freaked out.  Happy Valentines Day!

 

[LongRider]

Revolution in Westoros? They already had the Targs take over, what 300 years ago and they changed the government and brought the 7 kingdoms together under one king.  Then Robert's Rebellion which killed plenty of folks, and then was, Meet The New Boss! Same as the Old Boss!  The War of the Five Kings as aspects of rebellion and a bit of revolution.  They don't need a revolution as much as a coming to the Old Gods moment and getting their shit together to fight the Others.  

Once that war is completed, then see who lives and who has died and go from there.

The Who Sings Won't Get Fooled Again!

[kissdbyfire]

57 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Revolution in Westoros? They already had the Targs take over, what 300 years ago and they changed the government and brought the 7 kingdoms together under one king.  Then Robert's Rebellion which killed plenty of folks, and then was, Meet The New Boss! Same as the Old Boss!  The War of the Five Kings as aspects of rebellion and a bit of revolution.  They don't need a revolution as much as a coming to the Old Gods moment and getting their shit together to fight the Others.  

Once that war is completed, then see who lives and who has died and go from there.

The Who Sings Won't Get Fooled Again!

As long as we don’t get Bronn as master of brothels! 

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

As long as we don’t get Bronn as master of brothels! 

   Bronn as Master and Tyrion as quality control!   A f'n nightmare!

[Many-Faced Votary]

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The issue is that no one in power cares about the rights of commoners. Aside from maybe the Faith, but putting the Faith in charge has its own set of issues.

Saying "no one" is a generalizing statement, and especially does not account for the fact that rulers are ultimately people, an important part of understanding the books, and why it is that monarchy and aristocracy don't work even when the rulers are close to ideal.

It is also untrue in the sense that several Targaryen kings tried to implement reforms for smallfolk, chiefly Aegon V. (Tywin happened to roll them back later as Hand because he's the worst of all time, but it's important to note where they came from.)

Even in the absence of direct reforms like that, having a King of Westeros has been a incredible step forward for commoners specifically. Ending the ceaseless wars between petty kings gave them much more stability and protection from being caught up in the horrors of war at any moment, and levies were standardized and also stabilized. Allowing different parts of Westeros to easily trade with (and feed) one another, abolishing the tradition of First Night, etc., are all things that arose directly from unification.  

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

The issue here is that unlike in England where usually an event like this would be followed by the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights 1688, the nobles seem to have no wish to have a document which sets down limits on the King's authority. It is a bit weird. You'd think they'd want to do that after getting rid of Aerys. But no...

It is much harder to justify that in a more prominently feudalist setting than England in the 13th Century, because why, then, would the commoners not rebel against the nobles who have arrogated to themselves all the power with little oversight? (Especially since they derive what protections they do have from the Iron Throne.)

Beyond that, it is a drastic enough reform at the time of Robert's Rebellion to likely not have realistically crossed anyone's mind. This is particularly true because Jon Arryn's priority was reunifying the realm under Baratheon rule and Robert himself did not care to rule (and thus make any decisions) at all.

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

As long as we don’t get Bronn as master of brothels! 

Although if he's offering!

[Daena the Defiant]

I .... suppose that the very irregular occurrence of convening a Great Council could serve as the kernel of the idea of the lords representing their various realms and fiefs could evolve into a parliament-type body (question: at the various great councils, is the Faith represented?). 

For example, let's have a thought experiment. Suppose Prince Rhaegar is able to, um, rein in the worst excesses of his father's reign and basically a gigantic conclave of lords is assembled and they then turn around and confront the Iron Throne and say "that's it, no more putting the entire kingdom in jeopardy though your abuses and personal desires and vendettas. We are going tp force some changes and you will sign THIS"  - what are the tools for leverage they could use? Could they withhold their taxes and miens?  Or are those collected by the Crown?

[Many-Faced Votary]

 

1 minute ago, Daena the Defiant said:

I .... suppose that the very irregular occurrence of convening a Great Council could serve as the kernel of the idea of the lords representing their various realms and fiefs could evolve into a parliament-type body (question: at the various great councils, is Faith represented?). 

Representing religion opens a can of worms in the eyes of the nobility for multiple reasons; indeed, one of the  reason the populism of the High Sparrow popped up and is widespread is that the smallfolk had no other means of recourse. But who would represent each faith, and how many representatives would there be? There would have to be consideration of the religions of the old gods, Drowned God, Mother Rhoyne, and increasingly, R'hllor. 

What about commoners themselves? Would they demand representation? How would it be provided if so?

1 minute ago, Daena the Defiant said:

For example, let's have a thought experiment. Suppose Prince Rhaegar is able to, um, rein in the worst excesses of his father's reign and basically a gigantic conclave of lords is assembled and they then turn around and confront the Iron Throne and say "that's it,, no more putting the entire kingdom in jeopardy though your abuses and personal desires and vendettas. We are going for force some changes and you will sign THIS"  - what are the tools for leverage they could use? Could they withhold their taxes and miens?  Or are those collected by the Crown?

The biggest power nobles have under feudalism is that the king relies primarily or entirely on their loyalty, as they don't usually have (meaningful) fiefdoms of their own. That includes the ability to muster fighting men. Traditionally (and I think it is true in Westeros also, but I can't find the source), it is the responsibility of a lord to collect taxes, and to pay what is due to the king, so they would also have that leverage.

[Curled Finger]

1 hour ago, Daena the Defiant said:

For example, let's have a thought experiment. Suppose Prince Rhaegar is able to, um, rein in the worst excesses of his father's reign and basically a gigantic conclave of lords is assembled and they then turn around and confront the Iron Throne and say "that's it,, no more putting the entire kingdom in jeopardy though your abuses and personal desires and vendettas. We are going for force some changes and you will sign THIS"  - what are the tools for leverage they could use? Could they withhold their taxes and miens?  Or are those collected by the Crown?

I like this.  I don't want to derail anything and I really like this.  Would it be inappropriate to really explore this here?  If not let's pull this apart.  Let's see if anything close to a "parliament" as vague as my USA understanding of that is, could work within our current structure.  Daena, I see where had Rhaegar survived this would have been a great place to make reforms work.  We don't know enough about the people in power then.  Not like we know of the assholes, I mean power players in our current story.  As a thought experiment goes I would love to hash it out in here and now if we can.

Many valid points above made about Targaryen rulers making progressive good change for Westeros.  Great.  There were even plans to do better which were also great.  I think we all understand unification was a step toward civil betterment for the masses and many individuals, but not all.  It's clear the systems of class and entitlement are unfairly weighted and resources are not evenly shared.  I'm thinking education-maesters here.  

The one thing I see Westeros as a nation having going for itself is its solidarity in believing that human beings are not slaves.  You non US citizens have no idea what not having that ideology does to the moral fabric of a society.  Allowing other humans to live in slavery at any point in your past is a cancer regardless how many years on you are from delegalizing the practice.  It's just very bad.

I don't see a single person in every kingdom who could act as a spokesperson, a diplomat and unifier to keep them one without a king or queen in Kingslanding.  Most of them are small minded and seem to need a centralized figure to keep them in line.  I say most, not all.  

Most interested in your thoughts, Lady.  

[Curled Finger]

5 hours ago, LongRider said:

Revolution in Westoros? They already had the Targs take over, what 300 years ago and they changed the government and brought the 7 kingdoms together under one king.  Then Robert's Rebellion which killed plenty of folks, and then was, Meet The New Boss! Same as the Old Boss!  The War of the Five Kings as aspects of rebellion and a bit of revolution.  They don't need a revolution as much as a coming to the Old Gods moment and getting their shit together to fight the Others.  

Once that war is completed, then see who lives and who has died and go from there.

The Who Sings Won't Get Fooled Again!

The Who had a great many songs could play sound track in this, but then it would be A Knight's Tale.  I get where you come from in this, LR, I do.  I think if you take all that beginning WOT5K stuff it was less revolution than rich men fighting over the prize albeit Robb did have a better reason to fight and a bit more revolutionary edge to his fight.  And you are right, the do need to unify and get on the good foot.

The revolution I am thinking of is more along the lines of the b and c players coming out of The Winds of Winter.  I think we all assume Dany and Jon will command a whole bunch of forces.  How about between now and then and maybe along side then?  Will Aegon last and make a difference?  Will he get Cersei to go to ground?  Will he be the dude to rally the Reach?  Who will be in charge in the Vale?  The Riverlands?  Will the Westerlands be under Lannister rule?  Who then?  There is a lot happening.  I don't expect most of the ruling families to be ruling when all the words are written.   

[LongRider]

 Curl, I think we are close to the same page, that the small folk need to play a large part in being involved in changing the political system. 
edt, talk more tomorrow. 

[Craving Peaches]

6 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Saying "no one" is a generalizing statement, and especially does not account for the fact that rulers are ultimately people

Okay, I will be more specific. No one currently in power in Westeros cares about the commoners enough to try and limit the rights of the nobility in their favour, or is willing to take the risk of doing so. Yes, there have been historical figures in the past who cared, and some current figures like Edmure obviously care, but it is made quite clear that most nobles don't, or at least, the Smallfolk are an afterthought to them. Even Catelyn, whom I wouldn't call a callous character, was critical of Edmure for his decision to let the Smallfolk into Riverrun with the Lannisters coming. 

5 hours ago, Daena the Defiant said:

what are the tools for leverage they could use? Could they withhold their taxes and miens?  Or are those collected by the Crown?

By this point the Targaryens are dependent on the will of the Nobles to stay in power, with the Dragons gone. Presuming they are all agreed on this and feel strongly about it, Rhaegar would not have much choice but to agree or be deposed. They outnumber the crown significantly in terms of the men they can levy. I expect they could withhold taxes regardless of who collects them.

[Many-Faced Votary]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Okay, I will be more specific. No one currently in power in Westeros cares about the commoners enough to try and limit the rights of the nobility in their favour, or is willing to take the risk of doing so. Yes, there have been historical figures in the past who cared, and some current figures like Edmure obviously care, but it is made quite clear that most nobles don't, or at least, the Smallfolk are an afterthought to them. Even Catelyn, whom I wouldn't call a callous character, was critical of Edmure for his decision to let the Smallfolk into Riverrun with the Lannisters coming. 

Very telling indeed, especially as war continues to be waged (i.e., the Game of Thrones continues to be played) at the direct expense of the smallfolk. Furthermore, the winds of winter will only make things worse.

But at least there will one day be a dream of spring. 

[Curled Finger]

10 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Okay, I will be more specific. No one currently in power in Westeros cares about the commoners enough to try and limit the rights of the nobility in their favour, or is willing to take the risk of doing so. 

Further, we have people in high supreme power who absolutely disdain the small folk like Cersei who would rather feed the dogs left over food from an elaborate wedding feast than show a modicum of charity as suggested by her good daughter.  This is wicked use of power and spite.  

[Alester Florent]

I think there are a number of reasons why this wouldn't work, or at least wouldn't work as intended were a parliament just added to the way Westeros currently does things. The English parliament developed and evolved over centuries in response to various stimuli and without a similar tradition in Westeros, the institution wouldn't have any real roots and would struggle to survive or at least to have any kind of real effect, as seen in any number of IRL countries where western colonial/post-colonial powers just slapped on a Westminster (or American presidential-style) system, assuming that would be good enough, and the whole thing quickly collapsed.

I won't go into all the detail or all the history of the English parliament, but I think there is fundamentally a misconception at the heart of the endeavour that Parliament has its origins in a movement to protect commoners against the king. Rather, it, like Magna Carta, was intended to protect the interests of the nobility against the king. The idea of estate/class solidarity which saw the king as part of the noble class opposed to the commons largely grew out of the radical early modern tradition a long while later, and in a society where the overwhelming majority of the population were unquestioningly monarchist, it wasn't uncommon for the king and commons to ally against their common enemy, the nobility.

Eventually, the House of Commons did come to dominate the arrangement and to challenge the power of the king (although again the history of the Civil War is much more complicatd than the standard Parliament-v-King narrative implies) but the instutition was originally created by the nobles (and later adopted by the king) - perhaps unsuprisingly since the nobles were the only body with enough muscle to push the king into such a creation.

There's also relatively little evidence that the class of burgesses, merchants, gentry etc. which Parliament later came to empower has any particular presence or significance in Westeros. Even the "outsider" money men like Littlefinger are still nobles. There are some knights, but those not in service to lords (or members of noble houses themselves) seem mostly to be itinerant wanderers reliant on their wits and without much in the way of capital - even Uthor Underleaf, a rich knight, would struggle to attend Parliament without losing out on income from attending tourneys. It almost seems to function at times like an ancient palace economy, where money comes in to the local lord and then filters downwards.

Nor does there seem to be much in the way of an education system: lord's sons are educated by maesters at home, but there don't seem to be any Faith schools, universities, etc. - in fact, very few real centres of learning at all outside the Citadel - for common folk to attend and get an education. All this inhibits the institution of a commoner parliament because it is unlikely to have the numbers, the power or the expertise to function effectively and hold the king or nobles to account.

 

The other major thing which gets in the way, I think, is that Westeros doesn't really function like a unified kingdom, but still like eight or nine individual kingdoms with a partly nominal high king on the Iron Throne. In the event of crisis, it seems that the majority of the people and the local lords still look to their local (hereditary!) Lord Paramount first, and only a small minority retain any kind of loyalty directly to the Iron Throne. Westeros is therefore much more regionalised and much more "feudal" than England (qua England) ever was: it looks perhaps more like France in this respect, which notably never developed a parliamentary tradition organically in the same way.

But! This also means that the institution of a Parliament as house of peers could be a good thing for the king, by institution-building at the centre and forging direct links between the Iron Throne and the regional nobles, bypassing the Lords Paramount and reducing their hold on their individual kingdoms. As anyone who's played Crusader Kings will know, this can be a double-edged sword as it's much easier to manage the egos of seven or eight large vassals than it is 400 small ones, but it also means that none of the 400 small vassals are individually powerful enough to present a threat.

In any case though, instituting a Parliament to help increase the power of the king over the LPs is the opposite of what the OP suggested the purpose would be.