GoT[Spoilers] - The government of westeros after the end

[Artabax]

Also France was an elective Monarchy when they wanted. Indeed, France was often hereditary Succession. Edward II of England married Isabella daughter King Philip le Beau. Edward III was by Hereditary Succession king of France. French hate the Brits and elected some random Aristo to be the new King, hence the 100 years' War.

[PerrySimm]

The whole point of the show is that Westeros isn't actually all that stable. The Targaryen dynasty lasted 300 years, impressive by comparison with 20th century states, but not terribly long compared to historical feudal systems. The Baratheons scarcely approached 30. Now the Six Kingdoms are in a deep winter after a long and bloody set of wars. Famine would seem to be the first worry. And then perhaps, more war.

This is among the many things the show seemed to get wrong toward the end. The books seemed to basically be going for the idea that all the warring around was going to have the living on the brink of starvation by the time the Others arrived for the big fight, but apart from a few offhand comments, the serious logistical issues in the world of TV "Game of Thrones" seem to disappear after Sam and Gilly leave Braavos.

[Actarus]

Also France was an elective Monarchy when they wanted. Indeed, France was often hereditary Succession. Edward II of England married Isabella daughter King Philip le Beau. Edward III was by Hereditary Succession king of France. French hate the Brits and elected some random Aristo to be the new King, hence the 100 years' War.

Philippe VI de Valois was the nephew of Philippe IV le Bel. His father Charles was Philippe le Bel's brother. He was not a "random aristo" at all. He was truly the next in line. Also, the hereditary rights in France went through males. Isabelle de France could not transmit to her son Edward a right she never had herself.

But we won't relive the One Hundred Years War, aren't we?

[Naldiin]

Philippe VI de Valois was the nephew of Philippe IV le Bel. His father Charles was Philippe le Bel's brother. He was not a "random aristo" at all. He was truly the next in line. Also, the hereditary rights in France went through males. Isabelle de France could not transmit to her son Edward a right she never had herself.

But we won't relive the One Hundred Years War, aren't we?

This is correct. In theory it was well accepted that the Estates General could elect a king for France in the event that no direct-male-line-heir existed, but this never actually happened - House Capet, if we include its cadet branches, Valois, Bourbon and Orleans, never failed.

The agnatic nature of Salic Law inheritance comes back at issue during the French religious wars too - the Spanish, fearing the crown would pass (as it did) to Henry of Navarre (a protestant), tried to get the Estates General to look at cognatic options (it didn't work - under cognatic succession, the heir to France would have been...Elizabeth I of England. Whooops). But the estates couldn't just choose anyone - if there was someone next in line, it had to be them.

Also - because I missed that this thread was ongoing, in respond to Pilight's question: In North Carolina, public workers (which includes me, teaching at UNC - it's a public university) don't have the right to collectively bargain, which makes our union (we do have one) pretty useless. I'll avoid expressing any political views on the sensibility of that.