Who do YOU want to win the game of thrones?

[Queen Cersei I]

The Others. They may be of a different species, but I can't judge them for this. And they honestly strike me as better than any human candidate at this time, including Stannis, Aegon Blackfyre/ Warbeck/ Plot device, Tyrion, and he who shall not be named (lord commander of the nightswatch.)

[Queen Cersei I]

I would laugh hard if Stannis ended up winning.

That would indeed be unexpected, however, Stannis's willingness to employ people like Melisandre for the sake of the power they bring; his willingness to stand by and witness, and give the orders for burning people when he believes it will benefit him; his willingness to do anything, including kill children to attain his ends; all make his capacity to lead every bit as questionable as other potential leaders of Westeros who are deemed unfit on a regular basis.

Someone who cares for the people, who is willing to protect the realm from the real threats, someone who knows how to deliver justice... I guess it's Jon, yeah

I actually agree that of all the potential people Jon would probably be the best, however, he's made some pretty glaring political oversights in his role of high commander (not informing his men of his long term intentions WRT the Wildings and the nightwatch being first and foremost among them) that have arguably led to his current scenario. He has a lot to learn.

:D Stannis would probably do the work too but we need to kill Melisandre first :ph34r: and of course keep Davos as hand forever.

Saying that Stannis would be a fine king if one would only kill that pesky Melisandre is making a pretty glaring oversight-- that Stannis Baratheon is the one who employed her in the first place, knowing full well of her fanatical beliefs and proclivity for burning people. He knew damn well of these things when he gave her power, but he was willing to take her on and do a bunch of unjust things for the sake of the power he believed she'd bring him.

And it is the same now. Stannis is guilty of every single attrocity that Melisandre has committed. The only difference is that he does not have her genuine belief to back up his heinous actions. Stannis may pontificate and morally agonize and hypocritically justify every single one of his actions, but at the end of the day he is the same as Melisandre-- no better, no worse. Just as melisandre is willing to do anything for her god; Stannis is willing to do anything for his "right" to the throne, as he's proved repeatedly. Both are incredibly dangerous individuals in their own ways, and both would be disastrous leaders. Yes, Stannis as much as Melisandre, because, though he may seem more sensible on the surface, as many (including Jon Snow) have noted, in the end, Stannis generally does what Melisandre says he must. To quote Jon Snow (as he tells Gilly why it is not safe to keep her baby around.) "It is safe for now, but some day-- maybe not today, or tomorrow, but some day-- Melisandre will decide that she needs kings blood to do some magic or work some spell, and King Stannis will ultimately not refuse her."

Stannis is one of the most complex and fascinating characters in this entire series, IMO. However, he is morally every bit as suspect as Melisandre, and there are countless indications that he possesses many qualities that would make him a lousy king. Ultimately, Davos's common sense and wise council may well not be enough to spare Stannis for the moral event horizen that his character arc seems headed towards.

I completely agree with you that Davos Seaworth would make an excellent Hand, once he overcomes his silly inferiority complex.

[eyeheartsansa]

I can judge the others for killing people indiscriminately and probably demanding baby sacrifices.

and Cercei, I'm totally with you on Stannis. It surprises me how many people see him as a good king.

I like Renley.. I feel like GRRM offed him because he would have been too good to be true.

[Queen Cersei I]

I can judge them for killing people indiscriminately and probably demanding baby sacrifices.

Aw, come on now, that was self defense, man.

As were the baby sacrifices! Do I really need to point this stuff out to you?

Plus, in otheros, indiscriminate murder and infanticide are clearly accepted parts of civilized society. Thus, it wasn't murder or infanticide, and we can't judge them for it!

Plus, they tried to off Samwell Tarly, which pretty much earned them my lifelong admiration.

P.S.-- I am joking.

P.P.S.-- Or am I?! :devil:

[eyeheartsansa]

awww, you don't like Sam?

or is that part of your joking? :lol:

you're funny.

[Gaius Martell]

I am a backer of a certain Lord Baelish. His machinations have been stunning. He's risen from the lowliest of the houses in Westeros to Lord of the Riverlands and Protector of the Vale, and might soon be able to have a claim on the North via Sansa. He's playing the game EXACTLY how it has to be played in the feudal system, without actually having to go to war.

I realize that not many of his subjects have any fondness for him, but that will grow in time. I want to see Littlefinger continue his dramatic climb up the feudal structure, and be one of the few characters whose best laid plans don't come crashing down around him.

[Grip]

I have always backed Stannis, he has always been my favorite candidate to win the throne. Hovewer I do not think that shere should be a united kingdom, if there is then certainly Stannis should be its ruler. I would much prefer though if we had a King in the North, A Storm King (Stannis) etc, IE the kingdom is split up into seven parts each with its own ruler..

[Nordic Pyromancer]

I wan't the iron throne for Danerys, Bran as the King in the North(yes Jon is my favorite character but he is a bastard and is a part of the nights watch and have no place on the throne, and theon as king of the Iron Islands.

[Grip]

I wan't the iron throne for Danerys, Bran as the King in the North(yes Jon is my favorite character but he is a bastard and is a part of the nights watch and have no place on the throne, and theon as king of the Iron Islands.

Dany can stay in the East as far as I am concerned, or she can at best rule Dragonstone..I want Sansa as King/Queen of the North, probably Bronze Yohn as King of the Vale and Sky (a rather impressive name for a kingdom I must say), a joint rule with Asha/The Reader as King of the Isles and Rivers, Lord Hightower as King of the Reach. As King of the Rock I would want either Myrcella or Tommen, with Tyrion as Hand. Stannis as Stormking. Finally Dorne I would leave alone, give it to one of the Sandsnakes I suppose..

[eyeheartsansa]

I'd like to see a more stable nation state scenario with multiple kings.. and I could see Dany getting Dragonstone if this happens.

[Kate Poem]

Gods save the king (Stannis Baratheon, First of this name, etc. etc)!

But I think G.R.R.M has other plans... /sad/

Khaleesi. /Daaaariooo, take me, oooch!/

or bluedyed Griff/Aegon.

[another bastard]

I would much prefer though if we had a King in the North, A Storm King (Stannis) etc, IE the kingdom is split up into seven parts each with its own ruler..

But this still doesn't address the issue that I posed several pages ago: multiple independent kingdoms would just be a reversion back to the situation before Aegon I, which would almost certainly entail near-perpetual warfare, which would hardly be good for anyone. As an alternative, I proposed forward movement toward constitutional, representative government around a limited monarch, which could unify the continent and put an end to the endless struggle for absolute personal power and the endless bloody wars that result from that, without reverting to a fragmented continent and the endless bloody wars that would result from that. But people keep going back to this fragmented continent thing.

So someone tell me: How would that stop chronic warfare? How would it be better than a unifying constitutional monarchy with a representative parliament?

Remember this is a fantasy series, so you can't just say that what I've proposed is unrealistic, especially when it's actually happened in real history. I'm interested in why so many people think either some "good king" or "good queen" in the same absolutist system or reversion to multiple absolutist systems would actually be better for the people of Westeros.

[another bastard]

I'd like to see a more stable nation state scenario with multiple kings.. and I could see Dany getting Dragonstone if this happens.

There is no stability in what you suggest. Look at the history of multiple, fragmented, densely packed kingdoms in "the Near East" or Europe or the Indian subcontinent or southeast Asia or even China or Korea or Japan during periods of disunification - it's a recipe for permanent warfare, with each kingdom constantly trying to gain advantage over the others and fearing that the others will gain advantage over them.

[JKeats]

But this still doesn't address the issue that I posed several pages ago: multiple independent kingdoms would just be a reversion back to the situation before Aegon I, which would almost certainly entail near-perpetual warfare, which would hardly be good for anyone. As an alternative, I proposed forward movement toward constitutional, representative government around a limited monarch, which could unify the continent and put an end to the endless struggle for absolute personal power and the endless bloody wars that result from that, without reverting to a fragmented continent and the endless bloody wars that would result from that. But people keep going back to this fragmented continent thing.

So someone tell me: How would that stop chronic warfare? How would it be better than a unifying constitutional monarchy with a representative parliament?

Remember this is a fantasy series, so you can't just say that what I've proposed is unrealistic, especially when it's actually happened in real history. I'm interested in why so many people think either some "good king" or "good queen" in the same absolutist system or reversion to multiple absolutist systems would actually be better for the people of Westeros.

I agree that Westeros would be better off a single unified nation-state, and of course I agree that a constitutional democracy would be immensely better than the absolute monarchy currently in place.

Where we disagree, I think, is in how plausible such a development would be in the near future of ASOIAF. I'm not using the word realistic here; dragons and wargs and whatnot making talking about "realism" problematic. But surely given the constraints of the world GRRM has created, we can discuss what is and is not plausible.

To become the sort of regime you are describing, a number of things have to happen first. First, before EVERYTHING else, the threat from north of the Wall has to be dealt with. After that, maybe some sort of industrial revolution. How about the growth of a middle class. King's Landing and some of the other larger cities seem to have a sort of proto-middle class made up of merchants and such, so there is some hope there. The power of the crown would have to grow at the expense of that of the regional nobility. Flatten out the hierarchy first.

Many, if not all, of these things would need to happen before Westeros becomes a constitutional democracy. While ASOIAF is pretty vast in scope, it's not THAT vast.

[another bastard]

I actually agree that of all the potential people Jon would probably be the best, however, he's made some pretty glaring political oversights in his role of high commander (not informing his men of his long term intentions WRT the Wildings and the nightwatch being first and foremost among them) that have arguably led to his current scenario. He has a lot to learn.

Yes, he has a lot to learn. But he's demonstrated the capacity to learn, and he's constantly learning. He's still very young. He has a sound moral compass and an open mind and intelligence and courage. I'm very glad you agree that he'd ultimately be the best available person to hold power in the end.

Now, don't you think that someone with his intelligence and concern for the welfare of the people would be more interested in trying to figure out how all of these disasters have happened, and in fundamentally reforming the system that's caused them to the greatest extent possible, and in seeking advice from anyone who might have some insight into how to best do so, and alliance with whoever might be able to help implement the necessary changes, rather than just sit his own ass on the damned Iron Throne while leaving the whole rotten system intact?

Or are you hoping for a bleak ending where no one ultimately learns anything?

(I don't imagine that you'd fall for a happy "good King Jon will save everything" scenario, or "good King/Queen anyone.")

[Fred Stark]

I see all the seven kingdoms becoming independent again as it is the most realistic ending.

If not...

Although I want the Starks for the Throne,they would have a better life if they dont have the Throne.So Daenerys Targaryen as she is learning to become a good queen and has some potential.

[Lady Meera Reed]

I'll support Stannis until the very end.

Dream scenario: King Stannis, Davos as Hand of King, Jon as one of the KG. Not gonna happen, I know I know oh oh oh. :P

Otherwise:

At this point, I'll take anyone who isn't a teenaged fantasy hero.

:agree:

[Reed]

Jon King of all the North

Also is Jon a Targaryen in what book is this or is this Spec.?

[another bastard]

I agree that Westeros would be better off a single unified nation-state, and of course I agree that a constitutional democracy would be immensely better than the absolute monarchy currently in place.

Where we disagree, I think, is in how plausible such a development would be in the near future of ASOIAF. I'm not using the word realistic here; dragons and wargs and whatnot making talking about "realism" problematic. But surely given the constraints of the world GRRM has created, we can discuss what is and is not plausible.

To become the sort of regime you are describing, a number of things have to happen first. First, before EVERYTHING else, the threat from north of the Wall has to be dealt with. After that, maybe some sort of industrial revolution. How about the growth of a middle class. King's Landing and some of the other larger cities seem to have a sort of proto-middle class made up of merchants and such, so there is some hope there. The power of the crown would have to grow at the expense of that of the regional nobility. Flatten out the hierarchy first.

Many, if not all, of these things would need to happen before Westeros becomes a constitutional democracy. While ASOIAF is pretty vast in scope, it's not THAT vast.

I agree that many of these things would be necessary to support - and be supported by - an evolution toward a constitutional, representative political system, which in this case would likely be a constitutional monarchy with an parliament and independent judiciary. Especially the growth of commerce and a thriving middle class. And I agree that the evolution toward all of these things would have to be a gradual process, as it was in real history. I'm not suggesting that the final book detail many centuries of political, economic and social development. But the ending can certainly point in this direction by showing the establishment of institutions such as a parliament and a continental judicial system and even the legislation of greater gender equality.

Again, the aftermath of great warfare and chaos and famine and existential threats is often a window of opportunity for great reform, because most people are open to whatever kind of change can prevent them from going through all of that again. This has happened many times in real history, and the end of the series will almost certainly be such a moment. GRRM and his characters might use this window in his fictional world, or they might blow it; I'm just stating my preference and hope as a reader who has become fascinated with this world.

And I certainly agree that the threat from beyond the Wall - the likely invasion of the Others - will have to be dealt with before anything else. This will likely put and end to all of the petty and pointless but nevertheless brutal and bloody warring over who gets to sit on the damned Iron Throne, at least while it's happening and in the immediate aftermath. I also suspect that this existential threat will cause a lot of people to reassess their priorities, which will help create the window of opportunity for change. After the tyranny of the Mad King Aerys, Robert's Rebellion, the Lannister coup d'etat, the exceptionally bloody War of the Five Kings and its ensuing chaos, whatever wars will follow in the next two books, the arrival of a hard winter and the near certainty of famine in some regions, and the specter of another Long Winter and the extermination of all living things by the Others, I think that most nobles and commoners alike would be desperate for any form of stability that can be achieved, and much more open than usual to whatever reforms would be necessary to achieve it. The key is whether there will be any morally decent, intelligent, open minded and courageous figures on the scene in this aftermath who can establish a new government that people can unite around. I've said often that I think an alliance of people like Jon, Dany and Tyrion could probably figure out some basic reforms and have the legitimacy to implement them if they play an important role in defeating the Others. Dany could also be a unifying monarch because of her Targaryen ancestry and because she doesn't represent any of the "seven kingdoms" (actually eight) who've been warring with each other. My hope is that people like these take advantage of the window for reform to establish institutions like a parliament, rather than someone or another just sitting their ass on the Iron Throne and trying to preside over the same unstable, unworkable autocratic system that caused all of the problems to begin with. (Unless Dany still has the dragons, of course, in which case she could simply rule by terror for a while, which I don't really see as a pleasant ending. But something tells me that all of the magic is going to die down a bit by the end.)

An industrial revolution is certainly not necessary for unifying political reform, though. A rudimentary but increasingly powerful parliament developed in England from the 1200s and 1300s; in the 1600s it deposed and beheaded a king and briefly established a Commonwealth; the ensuing Restoration settlement implicitly established its supremacy over the throne, and this principle was explicitly and dramatically established when the Glorious Revolution deposed James II in 1688, and codified in legislation of 1689 and 1701. The industrial revolution was still almost a century away.

The political development of Westeros doesn't have to precisely mirror that of England of course, and it certainly doesn't have to go as far as the Glorious Revolution by the end of the series, but it could definitely be set along the same general trajectory in the postwar settlement by the establishment of a constitution, parliament, continental judicial system and other continental institutions. This would certainly facilitate and be facilitated by a revival of commerce and growth of the middle class, etc., but all of this doesn't have to be shown explicitly. All that needs to be shown by the end of the series is the establishment of these institutions - as opposed to someone or another trying to rule as a new autocrat, or the disintegration of Westeros into a collection of petty autocracies - and readers can easily figure out the direction this points in.

Personally, I see this as entirely plausible within the constraints of the world GRRM's created. In the best case scenario, Westeros could have a period of peace and prosperity and progress roughly mirroring the Elizabethan age. (And if Dany grows up and gets a grip and survives, she could even be an Elizabethan figure. After all, QEI also began as a young girl, ignorant of politics, etc.) I don't know if any of this is actually going to happen or not, but I think it certainly could, and I would find it to be both a satisfying and decently realistic ending. I'm just trying to think of what kind of endgame would be best for the people of Westeros.

[Arya Nymeria Stark]

Yikes! If you are only at ACoK, flee from these forums at once. There be spoilers galore.

My only problem is that not only am I a book addict, I'm also a COMPUTER addict! THEREFORE, when I posted my analysis, I ignored most of the other posts so I could post what I want, w/o being influenced by spoilers.

BUT thanks for the warning.