Game of Thrones is much more political than you thought

Democracy may still be a ludicrous concept for the lords and ladies of Westeros, but if the last and final episode of Game of Thrones is worth it, they are done with nepotism at King's Landing. The finale of the show ended with an elected monarchy and by Bran Stark as king of six kingdoms, in accordance with George RR Martin's desire to be inspired by "the medieval era and the crusade wars "in which elected monarchies were a popular form of governance.

However, the creators of the television show, D B Weiss and David Benioff, have throughout the seasons, and especially in the final episode, used modern political events as landmarks. It has often been said that Game of Thrones reflected the current political climate in the United States, and yet, if you follow the show throughout its eight seasons, you will find that it serves as a microcosm in which all the current international political tactics, the military agenda, the foreign invasion, immigration, religious fanaticism and movements are cleverly represented.

In the final episode, the Iron Throne we saw the release of Sansa Stark. the union of kingdoms that will now be ruled by his brother, Bran, and declaring the North as a free province. Although we can all say that he is in a hurry to finally see a female character on a throne (although this is not the iron throne), the reasons why Sansa decided to step out of the Union of Kingdoms seemed as convincing as those of Britain to leave the European Union.
<! –

->

Many years ago, Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark reached an agreement to keep the North in the folds of Westeros, so as to maintain peace between the kingdoms, like the 28 European countries united within the European Union, to finally put an end to quarrels and wars. between them and work together for the construction of trade and the advent of a flourishing Europe. Brexit supporters, however, claim that Britain suffered a considerable shock during the union, with the influx of immigrants and dwindling finances as it provided support to the countries the poorest in the union, which eventually led to the referendum supporting Brexit. In the television series, North also suffered from the alliance with King's Landing, as Sansa points out. Dozens and thousands of North Americans lost their lives in the great wars of Westeros, which is why they wanted a free and independent kingdom.
Although we never know whether his decision to free himself from the union will contribute to the future prosperity of the North, or whether the Westeros wars will stop affecting northerners, we can already see why Brexit may not have not been the best course of action for Britain. What's more, Sansa would have proven to be a valuable badet to Bran (and therefore to the whole kingdom), now that he will be a leader. Let's face it, Tyrion's advice does not always work, and Bronn, Ser Davos, Ser Brienne or Samwell Tarly are hardly good at state diplomacy compared to Sansa. If she had declared it in the union, she might have been able not only to help the northerners, but also other citizens of the seven kingdoms.

In a previous episode of Season 8, we saw how the people of Winterfell are opposed to immigrants arriving on their land. Although their fear of the dragon queen is understandable, the discriminatory behavior to which a woman like Missandei was confronted when she tried to talk to a girl in the area is not. In fact, it shows how immigrants who move because of wars, climate change or simply job opportunities in the real world are treated at the scene of their migration. Remember when the lords of the North were extremely xenophobic and unfriendly towards Wildings, whom Jon Snow had brought south of the wall to fight the dead?

In episode 5 of the last season, The Bells the makers show us the horrors of modern wars. "It's interesting for us to be able to take a modern reference and map the current situation because we have the firepower of the air with the dragon," said DB Weiss, in the HBO featurette, Game Revealed .

The face of wars has changed completely since the Second World War, when this Earth witnessed what governments armed with atomic powers can do. The makers of GoT however, were inspired to recreate the siege of King's Landing, not as a result of the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but of that of Dresden, a German city.

Allied forces (led by Britain and the United States) bombed the historic city of Dresden in 1945, which not only destroyed more than 75,000 homes and killed more than 25,000 people (perhaps more, there are several stories of victims, and each one differs). With this attack, although they claimed to want to break the communication networks in Germany, many have come up with the idea that it was to push Germany to surrender. Hilter was and still is one of the most despised leaders in history, yet this action by Allied forces, which killed many innocent people, has been severely criticized.

We saw something very similar happen in Game of Thrones . Daenerys kills thousands of people, despite the surrender of Lannister's armies, because she wanted to kill all those who supported Cersei, who was actually a tyrannical leader. But the same moral question arises here too: does its end justify its means?

The Rise of Faith in Season 5 is Again Game of Thrones shows how easy it is to use religion to gain political gains, and when that happens, how the most affected are mainly women. Although it may seem hard to believe, there was once a country like Afghanistan, for example, a progressive country. In the 1950s and 1960s, Afghanistan's progress in modernization was exemplary. Afghan women were really part of public life. Wearing the burqa was optional and many of them were holding a job.

However, things changed in the mid-1970s, when extremist Islamist political regimes swept up and incited women to house arrest. Most of the women in power were thrown out, while several were arrested for minor offenses, much like Margaery Tyrell was arrested by the High Sparrows, for GoT for lying. The most grievous and grotesque injustice towards Afghan women has been publicly committed in front of crowds, much like the expiation of Cersei in Mercy Mercy ] for his incestual relationship with Jaime Lannister. Game of Thrones well describes the pbadage of King's Landing from a liberal city to a place subject to an extremist religious regime like the Great Sparrow. Tommen sat solely as king as a figurative leader, while it was the religious extremist regime that ruled King's Landing.

Game of Thrones describes several social ills such as racial and clbad discrimination, rape and marital abuse, as well as homophobia. However, the most interesting badogy that can be drawn between Game of Thrones and current politics is the economic situation at the origin of rivalries and political wars.

Just like the monarchs who, at different stages of the show, have incurred debts from the Iron Bank to finance their wars or for their own purposes, there are also countries in the real world that would receive funds from nations richer finance their own wars – civil or otherwise. Lannister's money supported Robert Baratheon's entire political stance. As a result, they had more influence over how he governed than himself. Have not we seen this happen to many political candidates, who become puppets of their financier and investors?

Although King Bran's new semi-formed king's council is much more egalitarian, he also includes people from less elitist backgrounds like Ser Davos and Bronn, and at least one female representation (knowing that Ser Brienne is not not symbolic), economic factors are always messed up, especially with Bronn as the master of the coins, and his willingness to invest in brothels rather than ships is obvious. The wheel of politics is intact and spinning, and as every Stark chooses its own path, the diplomatic games of Westeros will continue, much like the power games of our real world.

Follow @ News18Movies for more than