But there were reasons for that. It wasn't as simple as having your certificate of aristocratic blood that gets you into the country club or something - social advancement was so rare, not because the system locked you out, but because the same situation and time period which created the feudal system, also made it impossible to advance. Setting aside aristocratic privilege, there is not much of a way for a commoner to advance. You can't simply save up and capitalize to improve your means of making a living. Education was largely unavailable (not restricted - merely lacking the infrastructure needed to educate people), and without the protection of the nobles, you could not keep what you got. The emerging middle class in the later middle ages provided a way out of poverty & farm labor, but that middle class was created by the patronage of the nobility, who would give charters to communities in order to attract trade or whatever economic function that community provided, granting them special status above that of people who simply worked the land and owed labor, goods or service to the liege lord, or through the clergy, who often were leaders in agricultural, scientific, technical and engineering advancements, and the best chance for an education for many people.

The charter for a town often included a promise of immunity to residents of a certain duration, so if you didn't like being a serf, you could move to a town, get a job or other living, and after say, a year and a day, you were no longer bound to your lord. But this only came about because the noble in question wanted to be able to profit off the trade (i.e. taxes or a cut) that came from the town, which is why he would grant them the charter in the first place.

The point is, for economic and social opportunity, you need to have an economy and a society. The fuedal system is a result of rebuilding society from nothing up, and there was no possible progress, because there were the fighters and the workers, and you were one or the other. As a practical matter, the fighters gained the most from the expansion and development of the economy to provide luxuries like gourmet food and silk & velvet clothing, and all the rest. For all that they put the emphasis on their blood in order to convince themselves and everyone else that they were already qualified for their superior status, in point of fact, they were in charge for much more practical reasons. All the other skills that they developed as society grew more complex and government became more involved than the original agreements of mutual protection & sustenance, replaced the simple combat abilities that made them nobles in the first place. A commoner could not simply step into the role of a noble via promotion, because he lacked all the skills that went with being a noble.

The nobles grew up learning by immersion how to rule and govern and administer their lands, how to deal with other nobles and how to handle everything else. Power is like wealth - it can ruin those who don't know how to handle it. We see this nowadays with the common phenomenom of lottery winners or sports stars going broke after a few years, because they simply had no idea how to handle the huge amounts of wealth that came to them faster than they learned how to deal with budgets and assess the value of things before buying them or make long-term financial planning. For all that sports stars got their wealth on merit or lottery winners might have come from the deserving poor who'd appreciate the money more, the children and grandchildren of tycoons, generally referred to as 'old money' who are what we typically sneer at as useless parasites & "trust fund babies" and refer to as being "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" seem to do a much better job holding on to that money & wealth then the people who strike it rich. Whatever unattractive qualities it may produce in a person, growing up rich and powerful tends to teach people how to handle their power and keep a hold of it. There are always those who can't, but then they tend to fail and disappear and their houses are forgotten and their more competent peers take over their domains. It happened to House Targaryen, and House Stark appears to be on the verge of this happening as well, though we can assume that both will make comebacks of some sort or other before the series is complete.

For example, the social graces that appear to be one of Sansa's few real skills - it might seem like silly things to our society, but in a world where so much depends on reputation and honor and personal agreements, social graces can be as important as a law degree in our world. Lawyers are not much use in a world where a sword can undo any law, but someone who can present a good impression and keep the minions happy can go a long way towards helping you stay in charge. For all that Cersei sneers at such things and at Sansa herself, Sansa's abilities in this arena are shown to be formidable and Cersei herself is tumbled from power shortly after she takes the reigns, while at the exact same time, Sansa, almost unnoticed, takes over the governance of one of the most powerful households in the Seven Kingdoms, despite no real credentials to authority, and handles it well.

The need to create the illusion of rule and power is as important in some ways as actual administration and oversight, and you cannot say that things are any different in our society. For all that you might like to think we select our leaders on merit, why don't you name the last time we elected a bald or short president? Candidates who do not carry themselves in the expected manner have no chance and are seldom even given the chance to present their views to the public, as the political and media authorities and consensus rules them "not presidential" and refuses to take them seriously.

In summation, the chances for advancement in society, like the form of government, are a product of the time, place and situation in which the society operates. The kind of widespread educational opportunities that allow people to advance are simply not there, for practical reasons, in Westeros. The Citadel might be slightly advanced over the real world medieval era thanks to their concentration of preserved knowledge, but thanks to those same institutional properities, is less generally available, with education being even more limited to the uppermost classes.

The problems with Westeros are people, not institutions. Bringing democracy to the Seven Kingdoms will not mean much, as the real power of the nobles on all levels will outweigh that of the people, unless you fundamentally overturn the entire power structure, which never works out well (see France, 1789, or Russia, 1917), and will result in ignorant and unprepared people voting for the guy with the best image, or who lives closest to their homes. Hell, the Lannisters could probably buy the elections, anyway.



The same can be said of presidents or leaders who come to power through other systems. I would not credit more than three men of the last 19 with being a good president, and at least one of those is of suspect moral character and others with questionable actions during their administrations.

Yeah, we have also seen that thinking about the little people isn't always the best move. The behavior of Edmure & Brynden Tully in their handling of Riverrun under seige is contrasted in aCoK & aFfC. Edmure, who is heedless, thoughtless and impractical, as well as being looked down upon by his sister for hoping that his wife will be attractive, and by all measure seems to be one of those wastrels and inadequate leaders who do nothing more to earn their power than outlive their fathers, actually brings his people behind the walls of his castle for protection when the Lannisters come passing through their lands. Meanwhile, Brynden, the smart one, who is never shown to do anything dishonorable, who keeps the faith in his king long after pragmatism would dictate or the king even survives, expels all the "useless mouths" when the Lannisters return to besiege the castle. That was a fundmental right of the commoners with their lords, and one on which the feudal system was based - the right to shelter with their liege lord when in danger. All those people he expelled are stuck in the same lands that Damon Lannister complains have been picked bare and which are making it hard for him to feed his army, except they can't possibly compete with the Lannister armsmen for what bare remnants might still be gleaned. So they are all starving or slughtered, while good lord Brynden and his minions hold the supplies secure in Riverrun. And you can't even say he's wrong, because everyone in the castle who can't help hold it during the siege is taking food from those who can. Any food the Tullys leave lying around for their peasants to eat will just get stolen by the Lannisters anyway. Caring about the common people doesn't help much.

Also, Varys is full of it. It is the common people who are suffering in the war he is sustaining by his manipulations, because of his arbitrary preference for one family over another.

Who says Peter was all that Great? At least two of the reasons for that name have nothing to do with the reality of his rule: he was physically "great" and he was good with PR. His actual administrative ability might have been good too, but I am sure all those people who had to suddenly live in a swampy wilderness where he decreed St. Petersburg should be built didn't really care that he had worked among the common people and learned their skills himself.

Also, a monarchy is not supposed to be an absolute system of rule. A feudal monarchy certainly is not, and neither is the monarchy of Westeros. In fact, the presidency of the US is tending that way, with recent issues like presidential decrees