GRRM enjoys his historical parallels, and I must admit I do too. Since last week's episode, I've been chewing on the Big 3 (Cersei, Deny and Jon) axis of power in Westeros, which I'm almost certain is faithful to the endgame of the books. These are the leaders who, through maneuvering, merit, resources and intelligence (yes, even Cersei) have managed to outlast all the rest to become a finalist in the Game of Thrones.

But what of the system that supports and enforces their power? The scene in the presence chamber with Daenerys and Jon provides an excellent juxtaposition for how power can be derived and weilded, and not without supporting historical parallels.

Consider Jon. He shows up with relatively little fanfare, unimpressive escort and disheveled appearance. He presents himself to Daenerys as first amongst equals (his lords and bannermen). This is reminiscent of the old Anglo-Saxon kings of England, who were typically elected sons from great houses, or sometimes proven warlords (both of which describe Jon's position). Historically, this describes a system of meritocracy, which means that the person who, at the end of the day, shows the most skillful qualities of leadership is the one who is the heir apparent. This is a bit different than a democratic election, like the Kingsmoot or for the position of commander of the Night's Watch- meritocratic election requires more or less unanimous motioning for the position to be legitimized. In fact, Jon's rise to power more closely resembles Mance Rayder's than any other king or queen in the series.

For the North and Jon, this creates a political system that is calles a limited monarchy, a design of Anglo-Saxons and apparently the First Men. What this means is that Jon's actions as a leader are beholden to not just him, but his supporters. As we've seen in the last and current season, important matters are taken to court and put to a popular motion. If Jon defies the will of his lords and it turns out poorly, he will be subjected to their disapproval, and quite possibly, lawfully deposed. Even if he defies the vote and it turns out well, he still risks losing the confidence of his lords incrementally. On the other hand, if he acts in faith with his lords, even if he does not think it wise to do so, it may spell out catastrophe and failure. Some decisions are best not put to a vote.

While a system of limited monarchy more closely resembles a democratic society, it is not always a favorable way to rule, particularly when a leader cannot convince the people he is answerable to on an important matter. This is where we can see Daenerys' strengths. In the presence chamber scene, she is putting forth an image of imperial power- not first amongst equals but the unquestionable center of authority. She positions her wise, important people around her, to give legitimacy to her assertions, since having wise, important servants willingly obliging her gives other leaders a sense of nobility and preparedness.

Moreover, skillful advisors are actually essential when it comes to successful imperial rule- while the monarch must act with single authority, they will not maintain power in the long term without listening to their experts, which I'd argue Daenerys recognises quite shrewdly. While Jon, when acting in faith with his lords, will shoulder equal burden of responsibility with them, in imperial monarchy she is the only one to shoulder that burden, and if she makes enough wrong moves, she will be met with a quick drop in power. Daenerys reminds me of the Roman emperors of the Classical age- coming and conquering, but aquiescing and compromising when it is wise to do so.

And now for Cersei. A classic tyrannical ruler, this type of rule is obviously based on brute force, discarding of any dissenters to create an insular circle of obligers, and using underhanded diplomatic tactics like spying and sabotage to shake off those who would oppose her. This type of government is truly autocratic- while imperial rulers act alone, good ones will allow for advisors and diplomats to try to persuade them in privacy. Cersei will not tolerate corrections, will not listen to advice. She acts on instinct, like a predator, ruthlessly crushing any who oppose her. Her only consorts are those who oblige her completely.

While eliminating foes to establish your position is actually a decent way of ensuring power, the weakness that inevitably follows almost always leads to collapse. If you act selfishly and alone, the only person that the people you govern over can point to is you, and when a better contender for leadership is able to rally support, the result is almost always a complete fall from grace, a.k.a., deposition and execution. Brute force almost always leads to eventual retaliation. Just like Aerys II, you cannot maintain your grasp on power through it because you are eventually going to piss off the wrong person.

So while the Queens of Westeros are both autocrats, through them we see examples of how to do it well, and how to do it badly. Cersei gains advantage by eliminating foes and Daenerys does it by making friends and granting leniency when she believes it will make her a new ally. One thing I find interesting about Daenerys is that she is a fast learner and nothing if not pragmatic during her short time in Westeros. I feel that, through Jon, she may adopt and implement some of the tenets of governance by consent and limited monarchy, because she will see how it benefits and adds to his legitimacy, something that Daenerys kind of lacks. And in turn, Jon may learn from her that at times he must act decisively for the benefit of his people, instead of wasting time and possibly goodwill if there is dissent, by putting essential matters to vote.

Between Jon and Daenerys, ice will melt and fire wiIl cool. As underdogs, they will understand the importance of governance by consent as well as ruling by authority. I believe this will be the 'happy ending' of the series, when the two most successful candidates to the Iron Throne create a new style of leadership, and usher in a new age of Westeros, and a ruling partnership between equals.