Bran the King / elective monarchy would be a terrible choice for the books

[Aldarion]

OK; so I have just remembered that I have seen several theories of Bran becoming the king of the Seven Kingdoms in the books, and thinking, "what the wight"? Especially since that idea apparently came from George Martin himself.

So I just want to put into words why that would be a very, very, very terribly bad idea.

1. Historical elective monarchy

Historically, elective monarchy was not, in fact, very uncommon. What was uncommon was pure elective monarchy. Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Poland - all of these kingdoms technically elected monarchs. However, all show limits of elective monarchy in various ways.

Roman Empire

In Roman Empire, Senate attempted several times to elect a monarch (e.g. Nerva). But due to the Empire being essentially a military dictatorship, this only worked if the elective monarch had support of the army. All elections that actually mattered were done by the legions - and legions themselves tended to enforce the dynastic principle whenever possible. So did the people. By the time of Byzantine Empire, the dynastic principle was so strong that women of the reigning family were considered a superior choice to even a successful general.

Holy Roman Empire

Holy Roman Empire has been an elective monarchy for six centuries, from 1202 to 1803. (in practice from 10th century). But it was not long - maybe two centuries - before the "elective" part became a pure formality. First Habsburg Emperor was Frederick III in 1452., and from 1453 to 1740 (or even 1415 to 1806) an Emperor was always a Habsburg. And always, always, elected monarchs were from within the Empire.

Poland

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had an elective monarchy from 1572 to 1791, and some sense of limited elections for even longer. But it was not long before the "monarchy" part became a pure formality. While Poland managed to last for a long time, eventually the lack of central authority would doom the kingdom.

Hungary

Hungary-Croatia has also frequently elected monarchs. But crucially, these elections typically - there were exceptions - happened only as interregnums, in case a legitimate dynasty got interrupted. In short, they were not a way of regularly electing monarchy, but merely a matter of solving an emergency.

2. Why it wouldn't work in Westeros

Firstly, Westeros does not appear to have any elective traditions. All the kingdoms noted above have had elective traditions - not just in terms of their own governments, but also in terms of presence of various elective systems (specifically, city-republics) within their borders which were subject to the Crown. In other words, while kingdoms themselves were, well, kingdoms, the idea of elections and other republican heritage was not foreign to them. Just the Kingdom of Croatia (which was under the same crown as Kingdom of Hungary) had Republic of Dubrovnik, Republic of Poljica, and maybe a few more I am forgetting. Both Hungary and Croatia had a tradition of electing monarchs. Holy Roman Empire had cities and indeed entire provinces run like republics with regular elections.

But Westeros has none of that. No urban republics we know of, no tradition of kings elected by acclamation. The only thing Westeros does have is male-preference heredity which goes back unbroken for thousands of years. The only way for elections to work in such a system if they were held solely as a means of deciding between two equally valid claimants.

Another problem that Bran would have is that he is not a valid claimant - at all. Targaryens laid claim on ruling the Seven Kingdoms by creating the unified Westeros, and making everybody swear fealty to them. But other than that, they largely left the system as-is - a feudal monarchy with hereditary rule. Where they did not - Reach where they removed Gardeners and installed Tyrells, and Riverlands which used to be under Hoares but are now under Tullys - the change had resulted in significantly weakened lordly authority. And this happened despite the fact that both families in question in fact originate from the lands that they proceeded to rule.

If North really gains independence at the end, then Bran's election would be even worse, because it will open doors for nobility outside the Westeros to covet the Iron Throne. And this would easily doom Westeros to weakness and irrelevance. Bran himself would have no armies, territories or alliances of his own. His authority would thus be reliant on a) weak acceptance of his own nobility and b) a foreign power outside the borders of his realm. This precendent would allow the North to contest all elections in the future, and not only the North - once the Pandora's Box is open, who is to say that Braavos, Volantis and other Essosi powers would not try to get their candidates elected? Even if unsuccessful, the very possibility would open the door for them to influence the events within the Seven Kingdoms, weakening and paralyzing the kingdom from within, eventually leading to its destruction. Therefore, the first prerequisite for Bran the King would be for North to remain as part of the Seven Kingdoms.

Second requirement would be the lack of rival claimants because - as is - Starks don't have any claim to the Iron Throne. This means that Targaryens and Baratheons, and anybody connected to them, would have to go. But even then, it is hard to see how Starks would get elected. If an elective monarchy appears, Tyrells are frankly a much more likely choice, simply due to size and strength of the Reach. For Bran to become a king, then, nearly all kingdoms save the North would have to lose vast majority of their power.

But what this means is that elected king's position would, from the start, be very precarious. Much like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the nobility would seek to improve their position vis-a-vis the royal rule, and they would do it by weakening said rule. The end result of this would be the paralysis and vulnerability to foreign influence. Hungary managed to avoid this despite having elections, but one has to remember that elections in Hungary were infrequent and the dynastic principle was generally far more pronounced than an elective one. But in a purely elective monarchy, nobility's votes would be conditional upon (future) king making concessions to nobility - and with no hereditary principle, there would be no periods of stability for monarchy to reassert itself. In short, while tendency of feudal monarchy to limit central authority is not in and by itself bad, in an elective feudal monarchy with no dynastic principle such a tendency would be simply too strong.

This is made worse by inherently weak position of the monarch. One part of reason why Matthias Corvinus was such a strong ruler was the fact that he had inherited absolutely massive estates of his father, which he could then use to finance many of the royal expenses. By contrast, French kings in Middle Ages had their holdings limited to Ile-de-France - but it was not just their holdings that were so limited. For a very long time, French king's authority was in fact limited to Ile-de-France itself, and outright irrelevant anywhere else. And position of a Westerosi monarch is, in this regard, much more similar to that of a French king. While Crownlands are relatively far more significant than Ile-de-France, they still require alliance with at least one - and preferably two or more - of the other kingdoms to win any confrontation. Combined with the inherently centrifugal nature of elective monarchy, and monarch would quickly become irrelevant. Especially if, as was so often the case, he had to give his own land to reward supporters after each election.

[Alester Florent]

Elective monarchies seem to have been very common in Germanic kingdoms in particular. While the four that you name are noteworthy because (as in Bohemia) the practice survived into the later middle ages - late enough to become unusual - it seems to have been standard across western Europe during the earlier portions of the Middle Ages.

I suspect it's not remarked upon as much as it might be because for much of that period it was in a kind of disguise, which itself was telling. The pool of candidates for election was usually limited to the king's immediate (male) family. The sitting king would often associate his chosen heir with the title as co-king to make his accession automatic. This is the way the French did it for centuries until Philip II finally felt powerful enough to abolish the elections entirely.

And in fact the German monarchy, i.e. the HRE, had operated on a largely hereditary principle long before the Habsburgs existed. Long digression follows...

Spoiler

The elective process of the HRE was pretty opaque prior to some reforms in the later Middle Ages to clarify how it worked and identify the electors, but the medieval history of the German monarchy is really just a series of dynasties. We start out with the Carolingians, the descendants of Charlemagne. After the extinction of the German branch in 911, and a few years of fractious squabble under Conrad (who himself died without sons) the German electors installed the Liudolfings in 919, who ruled uninterrupted until their own extinction in 1024, followed by the Salians/Waiblings, who themselves went for a further century before dying out. Then their close relatives the Hohenstaufens took over, and when they lost the title in 1250 it simply ceased to exist for half a century. There were brief interruptions by other candidates and the Pope attempted to engineer the removal of the Hohenstaufens in the 1200s by getting Otto IV elected, but dynastically it's a much straighter line than, say, England, over the same period!

In fact the elective principle should be so blindlingly obvious when you look at England in particular that it feels almost like it's been deliberately concealed, the number of times I hear people talking about the "rightful heir". Let's have a quick gander at the sequence of kings from 1000 to 1272:

• Ethelred the Unready, deposed by his own lords in 1013
• Sweyn Forkbeard, no relation to previous kings acclaimed king in 1013, died shortly afterwards
• Ethelred again, restored on the promise he would rule better than before
• Edmund Ironside, son of Ethelred, spent his entire reign in conflict with Sweyn's son Cnut before agreeing to divide the kingdom and being murdered shortly afterwards
• Cnut the Great, son of Sweyn and named heir of Edward (over the heads of Edmund's sons and brothers)
• Harthacnut, younger son of Cnut, quickly deposed for not coming to England quickly enough
• Harold Harefoot, elder and possibly illegitimate son of Cnut
• Harthacnut, restored after coming to England
• Edward the Confessor, son of Ethelred, recalled from exile by Harthacnut (his half-brother)
• Harold Godwinson, no blood relation to the ruling dynasty, elected in 1066 to succeed Edward, killed fighting to retain his crown against two foreign invaders who each believed they had a claim despite their own lack of blood relation to previous kings
• Edgar Atheling, nephew of Edward the Confessor, elected to succeed Harold, deposed in 1066 in favour of William
• William the Conqueror, no descendant of previous kings, effective conqueror of England confirmed by election
• William II, second surviving son of William I, succeeded over the head of his older brother
• Henry I, younger brother of William II, elected over the head of his older brother and nephew
• Stephen, grandson of William I, elected over the head of Henry's daughter
• Henry II, grandson of Henry I, elected over the heads of Stephen's surviving sons
• Henry the Young King, elected in Henry II's lifetime as co-king, predeceased his father
• Richard I, oldest surviving son of Henry II
• John, elected to succeed Richard over the head of his nephew from a senior branch, deposed in 1217 by a council of barons
• Louis, elected to replace John by a council of barons, later effectively deposed by those same barons following John's death
• Henry III, son of John

In a period of 200 years and 17 distinct kings even if you exclude Louis and Henry TYK (debatable in both instances, I think), we have only two or arguably three occasions where the king was followed by the person we would, under hereditary-primogeniture principles, consider the clear heir. And Henry III spent much of his late reign defending his crown against the barons who had elected him over Louis back in his childhood.

Part of this was down to a lot of war during this period, which disrupted a number of reigns and successions, part of it too down the way that to the extent the English system was hereditary, it was really one of seniority not primogeniture prior to Henry III. Indeed Henry III was the first English king (or king of Wessex) to be unambiguously succeeded by his son on his death rather than his brother: all previous kings with a surviving brother had passed the throne on to them. Realistically this was probably often to avoid a regency - Ethelred aside, English kings before the Conquest tended to die alarmingly young, with their sons often too young to inherit - but inasmuch as it was a rule, that was it.

As pointed out, Westeros doesn't have an elective tradition. The Iron Islands kind of do, but that is the most alien of the Seven Kingdoms and even that tradition has been dormant for centuries. The Night's Watch does, but that's an explicitly separate body from Westerosi society at large. Some of the feuds and sideways skips of the Targaryens might look like there are competing traditions in play - the Dance of the Dragons, the succession to Jaehaerys, the succession of Maegor - but as the history has been fleshed out it turns out there aren't: this is a point where I wonder if GRRM dropped the ball, because he had given himself the opportunity to introduce these competing traditions in Westeros history to build legitimacy for an eventual elective succession, and then when he came to write them, didn't. Maegor is just seen as a usurper. The Targaryen royal lineage from Jaehaerys to Maekar is one of pure hereditary male primogeniture.

There is seeding that a Great Council can choose a king, as was done at Maekar's death and as Cat suggests in ACoK to Renly. But, again, this is all treated as anomalous and irregular and the precedent doesn't come up as often as it ought if the series is going to end up with elective kingship as the way forwards.

The one apparent advantage King Bran has over real-life elective traditions is that (we assume) he can't have children and therefore can't start a new dynasty, meaning that an elective tradition can be maintained. But that's also not how this works. Even if Bran himself is some kind of perfect philosopher-king with no heirs of the body, there is no guarantee that his successors will be. And he has brothers. England's first king, Athelstan, had no children. And when he died they just elected his brother. We hardly have a foolproof repudiation of the dynastic principle here.

And of course we don't! Westeros runs on the dynastic principle. Lords pass on their estates to their eldest sons. Peasants no doubt do the same, albeit in much smaller quantities. The idea that the kingship can do something really radically different and persist in doing so, especially when the maintenance of that system is in the hands of the lords who themselves are fully invested in hereditary sucession, is... let's just say "optimistic", rather than "insane".

[Loose Bolt]

I am surprised that nobody had mentioned religion as a reason why electing Bran as a king would be very bad idea. After all kings who had sat on Iron Throne had been at least nominal followers of 7. Or his election would give very strong excuse for anyone who wanted to rebel against IT. After all the Faith has millions of followers and there are thousands of septs, septons and septas in all 7 kingdoms except in Iron Islands. 

[SeanF]

All good points.

An independent North would be in a similar position to Russia, Prussia, or Austria, relative to Poland/Lithuania.

It would give military backing to claimants, in return for territorial concessions.  The Starks have claims they can pursue in the Vale and Riverlands. And, the lords in those regions would try to play off Winterfell and Kings Landing against each other.

[csuszka1948]

Yes, it's not really a good idea real-life and makes nobility too powerful, but definitely seems to be the ending GRRM wants to write. He portrays the succession wars and civil wars in the Seven Kingdoms as pointless struggles and the greatest sources of suffering of the smallfolk, so an elective monarchy is the logical answer to avoid them.

The North will certainly won't be independent though, that's just something the showrunners put in.

 

That said, Bran is not completely stupid as candidate apart from his age. His uncle Edmure would probably rule the Riverlands and his cousin Sweetrobin the Vale, so he might have actually more support than someone like Willas Tyrell.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by csuszka1948

[Craving Peaches]

Also, even if they weren't going full elective monarchy but rather electing just whom the next new king in a line of kings would be, aside from the reasons Loose Bolt stated, it is debatable whether Bran could produce any children when the time comes due to the injury he suffered. Therefore Rickon would probably be his heir. Rickon has the same issues as Bran by not following the majority religion of the continent, and he looks like a 'Wildling King' option which probably wouldn't be very attractive. Also, Bran would have to be ferried around everywhere. We as readers understand there are more qualities than being able to fight and so on, but I really doubt the people of Westeros would want what they see as a cripple for a king. Just look at the reactions people had to Bran at the Harvest Feast. Multiple characters have expressed the view that it is better to be dead than be in Bran's state, and there is no indication this is an uncommon view. Bran as elected King of Westeros has so many issues that I can't see any way for it to realistically come about. I can see Bran realistically becoming King of an Independent North because he is first in line going by the succession laws (unless Robb's will trumps this). But being King of the Seven Kingdoms could only ever 'realistically' come about through Weirwood Network Stasi or something.

Really, if any of the Stark-related characters was going to be elected king, Jon would be a preferential choice to both Bran and Rickon, he is older, has more experience with ruling, can definitely sire children. 

[Craving Peaches]

Also, long run elective monarchy could stunt social progress even more in Westeros (assuming it is not already static).

[Craving Peaches]

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Holy Roman Empire had cities and indeed entire provinces run like republics with regular elections.

Just wanted to add that there is a theory that the elective practice in the HRE/Kingdom of Germany was linked to earlier tribal practices of choosing a chief, and Westeros appears to lack this as well, or it is so long ago it is of no bearing. As you have wisely said, Westeros has no basis for an elective tradition. The states that have some sort of elective process are the Free Cities, which people in Westeros often look down on, especially the nobles.

[Nevets]

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Also, long run elective monarchy could stunt social progress even more in Westeros (assuming it is not already static).

Well, social progress seems somewhere in the 13th-15th century, so even by real life standards they would have a ways to go.

I can see a Great Council being convened to choose an overall ruler, and maybe regional ones as well, simply because the logical candidates are dead or otherwise unavailable.  

But even then, I can't see a good case for Bran.  He's too young, probably can't have kids, so no obvious heir and he's a cripple.  You'll have to do this again in time.  And if he is somehow an all-knowing savant, that might be more of a bug than a feature.

If it's completely open, my guess would be either a Tyrell or a Lannister.  They have lots of collateral lines so plenty to choose from and they're powerful in their own right.

Btw, I am assuming Jon is not available, though even if he is he might not be a shoo in.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Nevets

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Nevets said:

Well, social progress seems somewhere in the 13th-15th century, so even by real life standards they would have a ways to go.

I am starting to believe the 'middle class purge' theory... Because they have been stuck like this for thousands of years. They are more like bronze age societies pre Bronze Age collapse in terms of stagnancy...

In all seriousness, I don't think having an elective monarchy is good for the social progress of Westeros because it entrenches the power of the nobility even more. Having an absolute monarchy and then a revolution would spur more progress. Bran with the Weirwood power could work as a tyrannical absolute monarch to overthrow (or something like Leto II in Dune) to spur on progress.

[SaffronLady]

It is my personal opinion that Bran becoming king of the 7ks should be discussed separately from HOW it is done, and also separately from the "if he is fit" thing, since it's all kind of getting mushed up together.

And mind you, the world of ice and fire has magic. Things that might seem unreasonable from a realistic point of view become reasonable if you add magic into the mix, like the lord of a mere island beating an entire continent.

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, it's not really a good idea real-life and makes nobility too powerful, but definitely seems to be the ending GRRM wants to write. He portrays the succession wars and civil wars in the Seven Kingdoms as pointless struggles and the greatest sources of suffering of the smallfolk, so an elective monarchy is the logical answer to avoid them.

The North will certainly won't be independent though, that's just something the showrunners put in.

 

That said, Bran is not completely stupid as candidate apart from his age. His uncle Edmure would probably rule the Riverlands and his cousin Sweetrobin the Vale, so he might have actually more support than someone like Willas Tyrell.

 

Well, it is still a bad idea. Elective monarchy is inferior to hereditary monarchy in terms of avoiding succession wars. In Hungary and Croatia, most of the civil wars happened after a dynasty ended and a successor had to be chosen - and then nobility chose two or more candidates and couldn't talk it out. Now imagine having to have a civil war after each monarch.

But yes, what you wrote about support is true.

[The Duck and the Field]

I'm also wondering what Bran could do to make everyone in the kingdom decide that he, a crippled boy from a house with no hereditary claim to the Seven Kingdoms, is the best choice to be King. It must be pretty amazing if it's going to be believable. In the show, his nomination as King felt so out of left field because I'm not sure why the other characters would care that much about Bran. The only thing I can think of is if he got credit for defeating the Others.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, The Duck and the Field said:

I'm also wondering what Bran could do to make everyone in the kingdom decide that he, a crippled boy from a house with no hereditary claim to the Seven Kingdoms, is the best choice to be King. It must be pretty amazing if it's going to be believable. In the show, his nomination as King felt so out of left field because I'm not sure why the other characters would care that much about Bran. The only thing I can think of is if he got credit for defeating the Others.

Alternatively, Bran is able to use his powers to create a magical totalitarian state, but that seems even worse than elective monarchy.

[astarkchoice]

Bran is unable to reproduce thus his reign ends at him leading to instability

Also If the others die and the seasons even out then with the wall down the north will become as strong if not stronger than the other 6 kingdoms combined due to its sheer size!

[csuszka1948]

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Bran is unable to reproduce thus his reign ends at him leading to instability

Also If the others die and the seasons even out then with the wall down the north will become as strong if not stronger than the other 6 kingdoms combined due to its sheer size!

 

That's a good point I haven't considered yet, but on the other hand, wouldn't the invasion of the Others attack the North the most?

If the 'evening out of the seasons' (something I am not certain will happen, the title is dream of spring) is attributed to Bran, that might help him.

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

That's a good point I haven't considered yet, but on the other hand, wouldn't the invasion of the Others attack the North the most?

If the 'evening out of the seasons' (something I am not certain will happen, the title is dream of spring) is attributed to Bran, that might help him.

They would 

But once they are defeated for good OR whatever pact between men and the others is re-signed im sure the seasons may become milder....the north would  then support more crops and livestock and its population boom taking advantage of such space!  the wildlings will probably intigrate adding more numbers (and unusual beasts and peoples ) to the norths potential base.

Edited July 2, 2023 by astarkchoice

[Alester Florent]

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

It is my personal opinion that Bran becoming king of the 7ks should be discussed separately from HOW it is done, and also separately from the "if he is fit" thing, since it's all kind of getting mushed up together.

And mind you, the world of ice and fire has magic. Things that might seem unreasonable from a realistic point of view become reasonable if you add magic into the mix, like the lord of a mere island beating an entire continent.

If we look at the criteria for kingship throughout the ages, the role of the king appears to be roughly speaking threefold:

• Religious, as high officiant, divine appointee, etc.
• Judicial/legislative, as chief judge and the fount of law
• Military, as commander-in-chief of the army

Not all kingship models display all three characteristics (taken as a whole, the religious role is most common, being almost universal) but for a cod-medieval/early modern fantasy like Westeros all three would be generally expected of the king.

Depending how you look at it and the way the story goes, Bran is either uniquely ill-suited or uniquely well-suited to all three roles.

On the religious side, he is being trained to become effectively the high priest of the "Old Way", which makes him uniquely qualified to fill that role for the followers of the Old Gods. But that same position is likely to disqualify him in the eyes of the followers of the Seven, who constitute an overwhelming majority of the population at all levels of society south of the Neck. It is interesting that in AGoT, Bran and Sansa are the most interested of Ned's children in southern ways of doing things, with Bran's obsession with knighthood even after his crippling. But that side of things has fallen away as the books have gone on and he's been under the influence of the Reeds and now Bloodraven. Something will need to change here - either a complete discrediting of the Seven (unlikely!?) or something in Bran's character, for this element to make sense.

As an administrator, Bran has some minimal experience of managing Winterfell during Robb's absence, but he is still very callow. Nothing in his subsequent adventures will have given him a better insight into this - compare Willas, Edmure, Tyrion, even Sweetrobin - except that his greenseer abilities might in fact make him a very effective judge. Put a pin in this one.

As a warlord, he's never going to be capable of leading troops in battle, making him at first glance incapable of fulfilling this role. But he could be effective at giving orders and in particular if his warging abilities come to the fore and allow him to take control of, say, a dragon, this could make him personally much more effective on the battlefield than even an excellent conventional commander.

So I don't think it's impossible that Bran could somehow convince as a potential king candidate, but we have an incredibly long way to go between here and there and bearing in mind all the other potential claimants (Jon, Dany, Aegon, Tommen, Stannis) and their accomplishments, nature and experience, he is currently the least well-qualified by a country mile.