In the Game of Thrones finale, we see

the Lords of Westeros declaring Bran King of the Six Kingdoms (Sansa declared the North an independent entity).

However, with an era of peace on the horizon and with

the Unsullied leaving Westeros and the Dothraki presumably doing the same/disbanding

there doesn't appear to be any power exclusively behind the monarchy. It makes sense for some of the weaker Lords to agree to a ruling monarch, but a few of the Lords have formidable standing armies; certainly stronger than anything the monarchy now has.

It seems to me that having the sole ability to rule your own land and having no monarchy to pay taxes/owe troops to would be in an individual Lord's best interest. With no significant threat of war and no power to enforce the monarch's rights, what would prevent the strongest Lords from following the previous example of


and declaring independence?

  • 1
    If you're the only house (or one of two) to pull out, you have to be a big house. Could Dorne hold off the other five if it went down that way, or would they be conquered and the current rulers extinguished? Just because the monarchy doesn't have a large army now [citation needed], doesn't mean they can't raise one. – Geobits May 20 '19 at 18:16
  • 6
    @Geobits Well Dorne was the only Kingdom in Westeros who held off the Dragons themselves, killed one in bargain and defeated the second Targaryen invasion as well. And Dorne has not engaged in any battle that we have seen so safe to assume their population is unaffected as are their finances and morale. – Aegon May 20 '19 at 18:31
  • Fair enough. I honestly just pulled a random name, but Dorne was perhaps not the best example :) – Geobits May 20 '19 at 18:36
  • 1
    Fear will keep the kingdoms in line. Fear of Bran's police state. – Obie 2.0 May 20 '19 at 18:37
  • 1
    @Obie2.0 Little Brother is watching you – Geobits May 20 '19 at 18:47

Don't forget why rulers exist in the first place. It's easy to discount it as "because they grab the power and no one can take it from them", but there is an actual benefit to it as well.

A good ruler acts as an arbiter to justly settle disputes between lords or houses. Without a ruler, disagreements between lords or houses tend to always end in bloody conflict.

By swearing their mutual allegiance to the same throne, all houses agree to act in the best interest of the realm (not just themselves).

This is pretty much exactly like what the United Nations is today. Whenever any nation acts out of line, e.g. by attacking another nation, everyone of the United Nations will unite against this aggressor. That guaranteed retaliation is what keeps nations from attacking other nations.

Swearing allegiance to the throne is the same thing. If anyone breaks the rules, everyone else unites against them, thus ensuring that aggressors (tend to) always lose, which keeps everyone in line and keeps things more civil than they otherwise would be.

| improve this answer | |

I was thinking about this as well!

  • My guess is that Tyrion would remind Dorne that they didn't show up to save Westeros from the Night King, and thus have not earned the special dispensation granted to Sansa and the North for said service.
| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    Dorne is all the way to the other side of Westeros. Vale and North were directly threatened so they were the ones to respond. Dorne was never asked for assistance anyways and they were embroiled in their own succession crisis in any case. Swords decide the future and Dorne has plenty. But for some reason, they chose not to press for it. – Aegon May 20 '19 at 18:41
  • 1
    @Aegon Likely they are waiting until the time is ripe for secession--I have no doubt Dorne will rebel at some point! (After all, they were never properly conquered, and their rulers are Princes, not mere Lords...) – DukeZhou May 20 '19 at 18:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .