much is said about stannis/aegon’s “one land, on king” line, but what are your opinion on monarchies with multiple monarchs at the same time?

sampaganoexperience:

racefortheironthrone:

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

Generally, they don’t end well. 

The good people of Andorra and both of its Co-Princes take offense at your gross stereotyping, sir.

Their data point is noted, as is San Marino and Swaziland.

On the other hand, so are Sparta, Rome, Carthage, and all those legendary Scandinavians who kept killing their brothers.

How were these supposed to actually function. Was it just they had to agree to do anything? Or did they have different roles they did?

Mix of both. Sometimes you have rulership switching off between the two on some regular basis, sometimes you have a sacred/temporal division, sometimes you have both with veto power over the other. 

Since you are very knowledgeable about Marvel, I’m interested to know why Thor Ragnarok is the MCU movie you are least looking forward to.

Well, it’s not that I’m not looking forward to it, I am. Buddy movie with Thor, Hulk, and Doctor Strange sounds fun to me. 

But at the same time, while they have all had their charms, the Thor movies have been the weakest installments in the MCU. So compared to the sequel to one of my favorite movies in the MCU or the return of Spiderman, I’m less invested. 

What’s your take on the Keynesian welfare state and full employment? Would it even be possible in the current world economy? If not, as a scholar of public policy, what’s the best course of action in your opinion to get a couple more glorious years?

Well, you’ll need to read my forthcoming book on the history of job creation programs to get the full version, but the TLDR version is: the welfare state really works to decrease inequality and improve economic security, we can basically choose whatever unemployment rate we want (as long as we’re sufficiently rich and have our own currency), and the only reason that we don’t is because we’ve taken as gospel a series of economic maxims that are wrong and have failed us at every turn.

Hey Steve! How does a merchant like Spicer get to take the name Spicer? If he gets rich enough, does he just get to take a last name for himself? Or does he have to go to Lord Tytos and pay some money and get approval? How did Maggy the Frog’s son get to found a House? How does it work?

Good question! 

Well, if we’re going by medieval England as we usually are, you can pick a last name whenever there’s enough people in a given area that it’s tricky to keep track of who’s related to who, because last names weren’t a signifier of status as much as titles or coats of arms or mottos (which required approval from above and usually some payment). So Ralph the spicer becomes Ralph Spicer and becomes considered a particularly well-established member of the merchant classes who’s following the forms. 

The big change is what happens when Ralph Spicer wants to make the transition from merchant to the nobility and found House Spicer. This was a difficult and slippery process, because one would have to start by becoming a gentleman (which generally required that one owned a manor that could support you without your own labor), then ascend to the status of esquire (which definitely required approval from above in the form of achieving some form of office that brought the title of esquire with it, usually Justice of the Peace or Sherriff or something else having to do with the law), then become a knight (which requires being knighted), and generally only after could one aspire to the nobility. Along the way, there were not merely legal forms one had to pass through but cultural forms as well – gentlemen were supposed to learn to be “genteel,” to get into chivalry and noble sports and out of trade, they had to get a coat of arms which meant their pedigrees had to pass muster with the College of Heralds (although this could often be finessed with the right payments to the King and then to the herald). 

So if Ralph Spicer was in England, he would probably have started by getting his hands on enough land that he could pretend that he wasn’t a spice merchant any more or to give it up altogether, then gotten himself a Justiceship by knowing the right people or bribing people, then making sure that his kids were squiring for a local knight and then marrying them off to any impoverished nobility in the area, and then making a bid for a knighthood and hope to ascend from there.

But Westeros is less legalistic and bureaucratic than that, at least as how GRRM describes it. It could be as easy as Ralph getting his hand on a bunch of land then paying off a hedge knight to make all of his sons knights.

Re: Roman Emperors, I’m not sure that’s fair. Nearly supreme executive power was also vested in the Republican consulate, and that system worked fairly well for several centuries, with the added distinction of generally peaceful transitions of power. It only broke down in the last half century or so of the Republic. And prior to the Tetrarchy there was a long history of having two rulers, one senior and one junior, until the legionary influence on the succession became more pernicious.

If by worked fairly well, you mean “led directly to the deaths of 26-28,000 Romans at the Trebia, 15,000 Romans at Lake Trasimene, 53-75,000 Romans at Cannae, and 80,000 Romans at Arausio,” then yes. 

Prior to the Tretarchy, there was a hell of a history of bloody civil wars as well.