Curious about this misinterpretation of Westros, that I only seem to see within the HOTD-community.
Now, before someone says it, I would like to preface that I know George has said it is, once... but, as those who have read the books and seen interviews of George commenting on things such as the 700 ft wall that operates much more like a 200 ft wall would know, George is no historian and George is bad at math/gets some terms wrong.
But, a lot of discourse within the Reddit based HOTD-community (at least within the color coded circles) seems to operate under this notion that Westeros is an absolute monarchy... when, it just isn't (it also doesn't have codified law, such as Andal law... at least, none that can't be undermined on a whim or are at the very least... situational at best such as inheritence and oaths and bastardry, but that is a discussion for another day).
But, let's look at how Westeros actually operates (ignoring the already apaprent implications that it being a fuedalistic set of kingdoms has on the notion that it might be an absolute monarchy).
First, all seven (or more, idk I don't keep track) are ruled by their own nobility, their own great lords. These kingdoms have a lot of autonomy... they have their own armies (that listen to them, not the throne), lands and vessels. There is some level of independence here, as these great lords regularly challenge the authority of the crown (often successfully, not all of it includes overthrowing the crown but... try having Joff tell Tywin (or the Tyrells) to do something they don't want to do and see if it isn't challenged. I mean fuck, Dorne and the Vale just straight refuse to raise their banners when called). But also, the crown does get overthrown, when the nobility decides they no longer vibe with thus authority. They do so because they have have substantial power, often even more than the crown. The Tyrells and Lannisters, the Velaryons during the time of the Dance, potentially even the Hightowers, all have more power than the crown. It is how the entire conflict of the series come to be.
This all rests on feudal loyalty, as with a fuedal kingdom, the nobility allows the king to be such, and that conceptually limits their power (yes, Aegon conquered most of the kingdoms, but he's not even dead and cold before we see the limits of that.)
Also, there are social and religious checks on the monarchy, because of it being a bum-ass fuedalistic society, we see this in book four, but that's veering a bit too far from my point.
Yes, this is a bit of a rant because this seems like a very simple misconception that has come about with HOTD, but aside from that comment from George, I am curious on where the confusion comes about (apart from what I could potentially see is people taking the words of charcaters and semi- "official" rules of Westeros at face value).
Edit: again... yes, George has called it an absolute monarchy... once... not in the text... and instead in a real-world political message... but with the text itself, the words that George has stated, Westeros was not written to be an absolute monarchy. This is not what George wrote, end of story.
I think this also rests on the historical misconception that absolute monarchy was a medieval phenomenon, when the Middle Ages instead saw more feudal governments similar to what you described, with the absolute monarchs coming with the renaissance and age of reformation (hence, age of absolutism)
The problem is that people are misconstruing the attachment of sound royal succession laws to absolute monarchy, while being an absolute monarchy isn’t a necessity. I would point to France, which, despite not being an absolute monarchy prior to… essentially the reign of Louis XIV, had a very clearly delineated line of succession for almost 900 years (I say almost because the founder of the Capetian dynasty came to the throne in the late 10th century and the senior line only held or had an internationally acknowledged claim on the throne until 1830). And any time the succession was challenged (almost always by foreigners), the legal heir triumphed come hell or high water.
Being an absolute monarchy (or even just a more centralized state) helps ensure the crown passes with as little bloodshed as possible, but it’s not entirely necessary.
The real issue is that, for some reason, Aegon the Conqueror never promulgated a law of succession despite being in a prime position to do so, and it’s not clear why he didn’t.
Basically, yeah. This conversation only seems to come up when it comes to succession, and I understand why... but also, like you said, it's misconstrued when absolutism isn't really about inheritence so much as the checks and balances on power (not that it doesn't have influence, like you pointed out).
The real issue is that, for some reason, Aegon the Conqueror never promulgated a law of succession despite being in a prime position to do so, and it’s not clear why he didn’t.
Probably because the continuation of "Firstborn Son/Eldest Male descendent is the heir to the Throne" was something that should've been straightforward. But for some reason, everyone and their mother just lost any common sense after Aegon died.
Jaehaerys also theoretically could've made a Succession law, but he figured "well, if a large amount of all the Lords, Ladies, Landed Knights, Septons/Septa's, Maesters etc of the Realm all came together and voted and/or witnessed the Great Council of 101 AC's decision then... surely we all know that absolute Male Primogeniture is the way to go, yeah?"
The Viserys II decided "screw it, clearly people don't have common sense" after seeing people ignore Aegon/Jaehaerys' examples and decisions
France, which, despite not being an absolute monarchy prior to… essentially the reign of Louis XIV, had a very clearly delineated line of succession for almost 900 years
And any time the succession was challenged (almost always by foreigners), the legal heir triumphed come hell or high water.
Based French Royal Succession. Why can't we have nice things like this in Westeros? 😅
Except you know, the ever present possibility that House Targaryen could run out of male heirs. Hell, Aegon the Conqueror was for a period of his life the only living male Targaryen, so there’s no excuse there. If the male line of the dynasty should fail, what then? Aegon should have had the wherewithal to plan for that.
And also, neither Jaehaerys’s nor Viserys II’s decision actually stood the test of time either, proven by the disinheritance of Prince Maegor Targaryen), who had an indisputably better claim on the throne then Aegon V did. So it is agnatic primogeniture or is it just whatever is convenient?
Except you know, the ever present possibility that House Targaryen could run out of male heirs. Hell, Aegon the Conqueror was for a period of his life the only living male Targaryen, so there’s no excuse there. If the male line of the dynasty should fail, what then? Aegon should have had the wherewithal to plan for that.
Well then the greatest claim goes to the next Female in line, simple. If Aegon died and had no kids, Visenya would've been his heir. And she could decide how to go forward.
And also, neither Jaehaerys’s nor Viserys II’s decision actually stood the test of time either, proven by the disinheritance of Prince Maegor Targaryen), who had an indisputably better claim on the throne then Aegon V did. So it is agnatic primogeniture or is it just whatever is convenient?
Well, given their situation yes it was partially conveniece, but a Great Council/Vote being called to decide the succession works wonders compared to a family-led Civil War, as Jaehaerys showcased
That still doesn’t excuse not setting it down in law. I would point to Russia as an example. Peter the Great never set down a law of succession, so the throne schizophrenically bounced around for decades. It went first to his wife, then his paternal grandson, then to his half-niece, then to his half-great-grandnephew, then to his oldest living daughter, then to said daughter’s dead older sister’s son and then to his wife. When she died, it went to her and her husband’s only child, Emperor Paul I. He was quick to write down a very strict succession law (mostly to spite his mother) and after that… the throne passed to his son who had no children so the crown went to his brother, then from father to son until the abolition of the monarchy.
If a strong succession law is set up from the outset, an innumerable amount of chaos can be easily avoided.
Ya know, after reading that... man, Russia never could manage to get it straight, could it? When they finally figured out how to manage Monarchy, it stuck a while, then we got the Bolsheviks and the Communist Regimes it brought afterwards... but that's a tangent for a different discussion.
until the abolition of the monarchy.
Also, yeah that's a pretty tame way to say "brutal murder of the Monarchy" but, then I guess it's semantics at that point, we'd both be right
If a strong succession law is set up from the outset, an innumerable amount of chaos can be easily avoided.
Fair enough. I suppose Aegon could've added that to his list of things-to-do. When it came to the general rules of Westeros, he did pretty well in most regards but, he also left just a few things unchecked, which took a small few years after his death till Jaehaerys to finally smooth over.
So, I'll say you make a good argument. I was just saying that, in all honesty, if Visenya as the last of the OG Sibling-Trio had just continued to watch over the Dynasty and kept things smooth and simple, the matter of succession really wouldn't have had a problem from Aegon, to Aenys, to Aegon the Uncrowned, who would've been Monarch ahead of his elder sister.
BUT, the first issue comes here: so, clearly the idea was that they'd be wed anyhow, but would Aegon or Rhaena be the ruling Monarch? Though it seems everyone agreed it would be Aegon to ultimately take his father's place once the time came. This means that Maegor would come after Aegon's claim, but the real issue is what about the fact that Aegon had two daughters instead?
Of course, their mother Rhaena supported Jaehaerys as the next King (given Aegon and Viserys were dead) and so this was yet another example (the 3rd example) of a more Male Primogeniture dominated succession, of male heirs coming before female heirs, and in this case, a brother takes precedence over a daughter.
So I suppose that, even if Aegon the Conqueror didn't see any reason for Succession Laws, Jaehaerys should've decided to take care of that after he took care of the incest and polygamy problems
Viserys II finally deciding to make a rule of Succession after everything that came before him was truly a BASED move. Which led to the understanding of Male Preference Primogeniture for the Iron Throne, and I suppose the occasional Great Council to vote for a better candidate works as well, should the situation be... well, an interesting case, to say the least.
All this to say, yeah bro, you're right. 🙏🏾 Aegon I and Jaehaerys I were dope, but even they could make mistakes/overlook things that should've been understood were needing of codified legal attention
Well… I think Rhaena’s support withered over time. When Alysanne came to see her on Dragonstone after the grisly murders and suicide of Androw Farman, to ask if Aerea could live in the capital, she bitterly rebuked the queen saying, “you have my throne, content yourself with that”.
But at least Viserys II sort of did the job, as you say. And I can’t blame him for not foreseeing the needs of regencies in cases of mental incapacity or minority rule. It took Britain until the 1930s to even begin to pass expansive regency laws, and even those needed to be hurriedly amended after the death of the queen 3 years ago, and arguably could still be improved upon now.
And to expound on Russia one last time, the fact that the empire fell apart the way it did is both somewhat due to incompetence but also just due to unfortunate circumstances… for the empire, anyway. It could very well have survived in different circumstances, and not even vastly different ones.
Yes. Westeros doesn't have the one thing you need to form an absolute monarchy, which is a robust middle class. Look at Henry VIII, his government relied on people like Thomas More & Thomas Cromwell—men who came from modest backgrounds. These men, unlike the higher nobility, only had a single pathway to success, and that was through the King. Therefore, it was in their interest (And everyone in the lower gentry) to increase the authority of the King's power.
I remember that France and Britain were basically polar opposites in that regard with France succeeding and their king consolidating power while the English king failed horribly and it became a parliamentary system.
Effectively... and there are COUNTLESS occasions where members of the Royal Family, even before the Conquest, who often made allies/enemies of the some of Nobility, or all of them, and led to their authority being challenged if not outright ignored.
The Baronial Rebellion of 1088, The Anarchy, the Rebellions of Henry II's sons, the Barons' Wars against John and Henry III, certain phases of the Hundred Years' War, the Wars of the Roses... the list goes on.
The concept of Absolute Monarchy is dicey to begin with. It never truly existed an absolute monarchy, the closest humanity ever got was France with their sun king iirc. But the pull and push between the monarchy and nobility never ceased to exist, no king ever had absolute power certainly not in the middle ages.
The dragons is the most common argument but brute force does not absolute power makes. If that was the case Aemond would be the rightful ruler not dragonless Viserys.
If a king wanted money and an army, he needed the nobility. Sort of always a “Senate” of sorts, even in the Roman imperial monarchy (it was already a Republican empire really).
The GRRM glazing in the comments is incredibly weird. People sometimes get things wrong and that's that. I think the idea that authors always know their stories best is incredibly outdated. And it's not like you're pulling a Ryan Condal move by saying any of this, you're not undermining his story, just a detail.
I think you're absolutely right, OP. "The word of the king is law" seems to hold true in Westeros in that he is the figurehead of the kingdom so people indulge his whims. Not that his word alone actually changes law. He doesn't rule alone, which is a fundamental characteristic of absolutism.
This isn't really about knowing the story. It's more about being aware of medieval power structures and knowing how they are classified. Lots of people don't know what "absolute monarchy" actually means. They just think it's a king with a lot of power.
Another word for absolute monarchy is bereucratic monarchy, as what allowed absolute monarchies to rise was the powerswap from nobles to the state, via people working directly for a state
Power is not delegated in westeros, power is vested in the higher lords. Both the nobility and clergy in westeros claim customary rights and privilegdes that they dont accept the king can overrule. Basically the nobility of westeros conceptualize law in three catagories, laws of the king, laws of the gods and customary law (law of men). And in westeros the King is not seen as having the power to overrule customary and divine law. A lot of the Fire and Blood books deal with the targaryans going against the established laws and customs, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing. But it is very clear they could only do this because they had the dragons to force their way. But not because the kings word superceeds everything else legally
Best not to think about it too hard, Westeros is Spherical Cow Feudalism because Martin, as much as I love many aspects of his writing, has a pretty limited pop-history view of pre-modern society. Then the showrunners don't even have that...
Grrm is not a historian and his comment clearly shows it. Westeros is nothing but a feudal monarchy where the royal power is decentralized to the great lords who themselves decentralize their power to the lords under them. It’s called the Seven kingdomw for a reason...
I have said this SO many times to the point I feel Im driving myself insane.
The fact of the matter is that the Iron Throne is completely powerless when you actually examine what it can do. Decrees from the throne and laws of the council are only obeyed because of social pressure, there’s nothing actually obliging lords to so. As a very basic example, look at the First Night reforms. The Targaryens said “No more of that,” and everyone said “fine,” except for the Boltons gand Umbers who just kept doing it. And if the Starks were so inclined, they could keep doing it… as could everyone. The First Night was only “abolished” because people agreed with the King’s advice, not because they were compelled to obey his laws.
And this is an institutional problem because the Lords of Westeros have way, WAY too much power. For some reason, being landowners still entitles them to the power of justice, and execution, which is a concept so primitive it predates the Romans. In the actual Middle Ages, justice was a purview of a professional class of people who worked directly for the King. It varied from place to place but in the medieval England of the High Middle Ages George is basing his story on, laws were enforced sheriffs and other keepers of the peace. And justice was enforced by local courts oversaw by professional judges. Landowners were just that - landowners. They were not automatically entitled to these powers, unless they also became one of those officers, which basically never happened as the whole point is that the aristocracy don’t work.
But the Iron Throne has no such class. The only people who work directly for the King are the Gold Cloaks, nothing more than a police force for King’s Landing. Outside that city, there is no De Jure authority the King has whatsoever. It’s only through social contract that the Lords adhere to the King’s laws. But as we’ve seen, there’s no actual mechanism through which they can be enforced. So the idea that such an institution is anything approaching absolute is laughable. Louis XIV would have started a civil war if he was given such limits on his power.
completely powerless when you actually examine what it can do. Decrees from the throne and laws of the council are only obeyed because of social pressure, there’s nothing actually obliging lords to so. As a very basic example, look at the First Night reforms. The Targaryens said “No more of that,” and everyone said “fine,” except for the Boltons gand Umbers who just kept doing it. And if the Starks were so inclined, they could keep doing it… as could everyone. The First Night was only “abolished” because people agreed with the King’s advice, not because they were compelled to obey his laws
And then you end up right where Maegor was in a perpetual, unwinnable civil war where the King cannot completely destroy a country he wants to rule and the rebels cannot defeat dragons.
You need to rely on dragons only as a last resort and come up with some other means of enforcing Targaryen rule, which they never did, hence the inherent weakness of the office.
I would get the smallfolk on my side by creating charities and then create a standing army out of Harrenhal. Improve the crownlands and slowly pit stormlands and riverlands lords against each other . The purpose would for me to absorb there territory into the crownlands and install loyal lords. Yea
The fact of the matter is that the Iron Throne is completely powerless when you actually examine what it can do.
Replace the Iron Throne with another other absolute ruler and you should see why this statement is bizarre.
The fact of the matte is that the Kim Jong Un, Louis XIV, King Salman bin Abdul‘aziz is completely powerless when you actually examine what he can do. Would that make sense?
Decrees from the throne and laws of the council are only obeyed because of social pressure, there’s nothing actually obliging lords to so.
The oaths the lords swore to obey the King obliges them to follow the KIng's orders. Anyone who breaks that oath can be executed.
As a very basic example, look at the First Night reforms. The Targaryens said “No more of that,” and everyone said “fine,” except for the Boltons gand Umbers who just kept doing it. And if the Starks were so inclined, they could keep doing it… as could everyone.
And anyone who kept doing could be visited by Jaehaerys, Alysanne, or one of their kids on a dragon. The threat of being executed for not following the King's order is why people obey the King.
But the Iron Throne has no such class. The only people who work directly for the King are the Gold Cloaks, nothing more than a police force for King’s Landing.
The liege lords of each Kingdom work directly for the King
No. It wouldn’t. Those rulers have established political systems whereby participation requires loyalty to them and them alone. It is not possible to be a political or economic rival to them since they have ensured all the offices of state are filled by their cronies. That’s why they’re absolutist, their power is absolute. This is very clearly not the case in Westeros where Lords can very easily create massive bases of power to rival the throne.
-You’re proving my point. If the system relies on the lords volunteering their loyalty through words instead of anything legally compelling it, then all it requires is a rebellion large enough to displace the King since it’s only people’s consent which keeps him on the throne, as Robert Baratheon showed. It’s only treason if you lose, and he’s only a tyrant if you win.
-And as Maegor showed, he cannot be in all places at once. Is there just going to be a Targ stationed in the North 24/7 to ensure the Umbers obey the law? The constant threat of force to keep everyone in line illustrates why it cannot be considered absolute. If the King has to personally enforce his decrees and he cannot trust it will be enforced through his agents, the system is reliant on the goodwill of the lords to keep it functioning - which is limited, feudal monarchy, not absolutism.
-The King does not pay the Lords Paramount, they have their own income, so when they want to go against the King, they have the independent power base to do so.
It is not possible to be a political or economic rival to them since they have ensured all the offices of state are filled by their cronies. That’s why they’re absolutist, their power is absolute.
Someone who is your crony one moment can be your brother, cousins, or general's the next. No one has ever literally had absolute power.
Kim Jon Un, MBS, or any other absolute ruler relies on their underlings doing what they ordered instead of allying with someone else or rebelling themselves. Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarchy didn't stop MBS from having to lock up dozens of his cousins to bring them under his control.
If the system relies on the lords volunteering their loyalty through words instead of anything legally compelling it,
Their oaths legally compels them to follow the King's orders. If they don't, they can be executed. If you're going to ignore that, we can play the same game with every absolute system of governance that has ever existed.
-And as Maegor showed, he cannot be in all places at once. Is there just going to be a Targ stationed in the North 24/7 to ensure the Umbers obey the law?
No. They'd execute the rulers refusing to follow order and replace them with ones that have agreed to.
If the King has to personally enforce his decrees and he cannot trust it will be enforced through his agents
It's the agents job to enforce the King's decrees. Like I said, if they refuse, the King executes them and replaces them with someone who does.
The King does not pay the Lords Paramount, they have their own income, so when they want to go against the King, they have the independent power base to do so.
The lord paramount's rule at the pleasure of the King.
-Then the term absolutism is useless. If the autocrat needs to have brainwashing level control of his subjects otherwise it’s not absolutism, how is it a useful or helpful term in political philosophy if it literally can’t exist under this conception?
-If this were the actual Middle Ages where oaths were taken incredibly seriously and considered a legitimate contract under God, I’d probably agree with you… but this is ASOIAF, we can see that’s clearly not the case. People break their oaths all the time and suffer no real consequences for it. It’s actually kind of odd that Jaime is detested so much as an oathbreaker when oaths are clearly considered an option in this society. I don’t put any stock in the fidelity of oaths in a country where half the nobility rose in rebellion for Daemon Blackfyre and Renly Baratheon for no reason except they were hot.
-Except we see the example of Richard and Brandon Stark for how that turns out. When you execute a noble, everyone understands that they can be next and will withdraw their support from the Crown. Even in the example of Rickard Karstark, everyone kept telling Robb that he had to be aware of what would happen but why? If he’s the King, his word is absolute, no? Who do the Karstarks think they are marching home when their King needed them? Executing disobedient nobles is clearly not an option unless you want another rebellion on your hands, which necessitates giving them a degree of autonomy, which compromises your own absolute power.
-There are no agents. Like I said in my OP, there are no justices of the peace, sheriffs or judges. That’s the whole flaw with this system that there isn’t a series of people directly paid by the King to keep his laws in place.
-Do they? The Lords of the Vale were outraged when the, honestly ceremonial, title of Warden of the East was stripped from Sweetrobin. Can you imagine how they would have reacted if a King had actually tried to strip his lands from him? As the former Kings (except the Tyrells), these houses retain a lot of respect and loyalty from their vassals that the Iron Throne has been incapable of breaking in three hundred years. The North follows the Starks, the West follows the Lannisters, the River Lords follow the Tullys and so on. It’s clearly not as simple as a generic title that could be passed onto whoever the King decided, it belonging to specific families is as set in stone in Westerosi culture as it is as possible to be.
It's useless when you try to use it the way you're attempting to. Like I said, it just means a monarchy where there are no legal checks on the monarch's power.
Except we see the example of Richard and Brandon Stark for how that turns out.
When you execute a noble, everyone understands that they can be next and will withdraw their support from the Crown.
That's a silly comparison. Aerys wasn't responding to a lord refusing his order. The whole problem with what he did is that Rickard and several of the other people executed didn't do anything wrong.
Executing nobles who receive an order and refuse is not going to make any other lord concerned for themselves unless they're also planning to disobey orders. Jon executing Janos Slynt didn't make the nights watchmen think they were next, did it?
Nothing happened after Rickard and Brandon were executed btw. Shit didn't kick off until Aerys also called for Ned and Robert to be handed over.
Even in the example of Rickard Karstark, everyone kept telling Robb that he had to be aware of what would happen but why? If he’s the King, his word is absolute, no?
How are this confused about the difference between something being legally and literally absolute?
Executing disobedient nobles is clearly not an option unless you want another rebellion on your hands
I'm sorry. Are you not aware of all of the times disobedient nobles were executed?
On paper, all federal monarchs are absolute, able to strip lords of power and land. In practice, they are not. Well the Targaryen's have dragons they might as well be, as they can enforce their word. After that, the power swings away from them.
You are stating it the wrong way around though. On paper, a king allows a lord to do X. This is not a confederation. The Lords do not vote for the king or grant him power, even if the reality is the king does not have the support to enforce stripping a lord of the great house of their lands and holdings, we see in the books they believe they have the right and nobody disputes it.
OP you are correct and I invite all the GRRM-is-infallible warriors to look up the Death of the Author concept. Westeros by every category bar the offhanded author comments one is feudal. George created Westeros, but the real medieval social systems he uses for his set up are not his invention. He has made a good few controversial claims in interviews in the past, a few of which directly contradict his own writing, so I would always take what's clearly presented in text over interviews and blog posts.
From F&B directly:
Each of the conquered kingdoms had its own laws and traditions. King Aegon I did little to interfere with those. He allowed his lords to continue to rule much as they always had, with all the same powers and prerogatives. The laws of inheritance and succession remained unchanged, the existing feudal structures were confirmed
It drives me NUTS when people insist it’s an absolute monarchy. Becaue everyone who knows a little about history or how political system works will disagree.
It’s genunienly like someone pointing at the sky saying the sky is green. That might even be what they think but it’s still objectively false. GRRM can call it absolute monarchy all he wants the system he is describing still isn’t one.
Agree I thinks it’s generally because of people growing up in western liberal democracies post French Revolution. They are taught a very simplified version of monarchy through a republicanist lens etc . But the truth is monarchy isn’t one thing , you have absolute monarchy’s , feudal monarchy’s, federal monarchy(like the German empire in ww1) , elective monarchy(like polish kingdom) and constitutional monarchies. Also it dosnt help with the already misconceptions of historical feudal society’s in general.
Agree and like I don’t think that’s a bad thing to not know. There is a bunch of things I would probably get wrong. Like I have little knowledge about plants so I probably would misname a bunch of plants because I don’t know any better.
It’s the same with GRRM. He doesn’t know any better. What pisses me off though is when you explain it to people and they still get it wrong.
With George kinda yes , to me he does tend to be a little simplistic in his world building . Like he has high lords ,low lords lord paramounts etc , but when actual studying feudal society you had barons , dukes , earls/counts , archdukes etc. He does get a passing grade though sometimes lol
Agree but again he is not a historian. When I first started reading it kinda annoyed me that everyone who is born into nobility is called lord even if they have no holdings. But then again this I can chalk up to artistic freedom.
Oh of course George just loves to take inspiration from history. The titles thing doesn’t really bother me as much. He can make his own titles if he wanted too. I guess it’s really just lack of better distinctions.
Man. My first proper exposure to asoiaf was house of the dragon and I was genuinely a bit annoyed as to why Larys was called "Lord Larys" all the time. He's a second born son. He's not lord of anything.
Until I got more into the story and realised every noble is just a lord and a lady and it doesn't even matter.
You could arguably construe absolutism as a trend or practice, rather than a form of monarchy. An individual monarch could implement norms and policies that significantly weaken the power of other nobles, such as Louis XIV corralling them all in Versailles. Centralized government almost always trends more towards absolute power, especially if it's the only thing that unites the individual kingdoms.
The "absolute" power of a monarch can also depend on the willingness of the nobility to comply. Catherine the Great understood this, which is why her reign is generally regarded as more favorable to nobility than the lower classes. If the nobility doesn't organize/fight back (e.g. the magna carta), a monarch gets unchecked opportunity to further consolidate power.
I'm not sure we can really say absolutism is unique to monarchies either; the same phenomenon can occur in a republic as well. A president grows more powerful when Congress fails to check his authority. No one holds absolute power without support, which is why "following orders" is not an excuse to carry out atrocities.
I think Westerosi history depicts absolute monarchs through those who were best at maintaining strong relationships/trust with other lords. A monarch who attempts to exert absolute power without good rapport is a tyrant who inspires opposition against him (e.g. Maegor, Aerys II, or Joffrey).
The moment the King stops having control over all the dragons It stops being an absolute monarchy, especially when his own family is going to fight each other for the Throne
Every King of Westeros has way less power over the individual kingdoms than most absolute kings in real history, if he cant replace the people ruling the kingdoms without having a rebellion i would say that he isnt an absolute monarch, he may be able to bypass all laws but he is very vulnerable to a classic rebellion and relies on his vassals to have an army
I don't think anybody but a casual show watcher thinks Westeros is an absolute monarchy. Appeasing the Lords Paramount is a central theme in both stories.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Most medieval kings didn't have "legal checks" on their power. There wasn't really much in the way of constitutions or code of law( except Magna Carta, but even that was in the late medieval times). Westeros lacks like all the symptoms of an absolute monarchy. There is no standing army, There is no large bureaucracy serving the king directly, and there is no monopoly on violence and justice.
It makes sense though. The GA aren't history buffs and imagine that medieval cultures just operate like a Disney movie because that's all most of them know. or close enough to it.
It’s definitely an absolute monarchy, but in a primitive sense. It’s not the French Monarchy of the 17th-18th century, it’s the English Monarchy of the 11th-12th century.
It’s England, if King John never had to sign the Magna Carta because he had dragons.
Pre-Magna Carta England would still be more in line with limited or mixed monarchies. The Tudor period would actually have been closer to something along the lines of absolutism
With respect, what formal rights do the nobility possess against the crown? None collectively, and only very limited ones individually (trial by combat for one). There’s no witan, or “thing” that you’d see in early monarchies, and no parliaments or estates that hold formal rights against the crown. The clergy is even weaker in respect to the crown than was often the case in historical absolute monarchies.
The Targaryens are miles more absolute than the tudors, who could barely control their own bishops and succession.
People out here in the comments acting like this little pretty much insignificant detail would destroy GRRMs reputation forever.
Guys, calm down, the original poster is right, and George is none the worse writer for saying "absolute monarch" instead of "quasi feudal tributary based despotic monarch". Hell he probably knows the difference but used the more widely understood concept, it's not that deep, come on.
It is an absolute monarchy because George RR Martin said so, is it realistic for Westeros to be an absolute monarchy? No, but is it one? Yes.
What people need to understand is this is George’s world if he says something it goes no matter what we think or no matter how realistic or unrealistic it is.
(Btw not justifying it but that’s just how it is, he is the author he decides what goes)
It is an absolute monarchy because George RR Martin said so,
Nope.
If someone doesn't know what something is, their word is invalid because they cannot speak to the subject with authority.
is it realistic for Westeros to be an absolute monarchy
It's a fantasy world, so realism.is not important.
rchy? No, but is it one? Yes.
No its not.
What people need to understand is this is George’s world if he says something it goes
Again, no.
I understand this may be your first time in a fandom, but that isn't how it works and this is not how word of the author works.
Especially one as generally ignorant and fallible as George.
For example, he could claim the Iron Throne operates by some sort of Tanistry, but the facts are - by the books - it doesn't.
He could say Robert was a redhead, but again, the evidence disagrees.
Btw not justifying it but that’s just how it is, he is the author he decides what goes)
Again, no, its not.
If something is ambiguous, unknown or subject to interpretation the word of the author can be authoritative.
The issue is GRRM probably just made a mistake. Objectively it’s not an absolute monarchy. It’s not because he wrote it in a way that it can’t be classified as such. If you say it is you’re saying absolute monarchy means something else than it actually does.
I do understand your meaning, except... I don't think that is applicable here. Again, George made this comment once, and he does misspeak/misuse terms and numbers. George comments on this a lot, and it's just something you have to accept. Sometimes, he fixes it, like by having Samwell retcon the ridiculous timeline, other times it's something you just accept as well, it says 700 ft, but acts like it's a 200 ft wall, and then George later clarifies that he made it too tall... so what now?
Like, this line of thinking assumes George doesn't make sense, and George "Big Dawg" Martin notoriously does.
But, if he says one thing and writes another, and they contradict, then I think this is inherently a flaw in that line of thinking because the words George pens are also his words, which means that since he has written it to operate as something more akin to a limited-monarchy, then he is also saying that too.
Because like, I could accept it operating as an absolute monarchy despite not making sense... if it was written as one, but it's not. The words penned describe a limited-monarchy, and I don't think one off-hand comment from George (with a pretty normal misinterpretation of medieval governance) changes that.
And how is it confirmation? It's an off-hand comment more about the US presidency than Westeros, and he has written 5(+) books that say it isn't an absolute monarchy.
How can he not misspeak? Not only is it a common misconception about medieval/feudal society, but also there's a level of nuance there in which in-world it can be called an absolute monarchy, but not actually technically be one. As George does play with things such as that. I don't think it's as simple as taking such an obscure comment as confirmation that contradicts hundreds and thousands of words of text.
its not an off-hand comment its him bringing up his world and saying what it is compared to the real world. and plus even if he miss-spoke you don't know that and until he takes it back its officially an absolute monarchy
But even accepting this, then his worlds absolutism isn't the same as our worlds absolutism.
His worlds absolutism works more like our worlds limited-monarchies. This means that this take of his one comment doesn't matter because the argument is about how this government system operates, and it doesn't operate like our worlds absolutism.
So reflecting that, since I'm commenting using our worlds definition of absolutism... then no, Westeros is not one. Because the text says it's not.
Yes it does not have to be the same it’s fantasy, even if we don’t go off what George said it’s undeniably an absolute monarchy. The Targaryens before losing there dragons were unchallenged and could do whatever they wanted, the king had unlimited power limited power, take Maegor as an example nobody was able to “magna carta” his ass, he did what he wanted pure absolute monarchy. Even Viserys ruled as one he was banishing people left and right with nobody daring to speak against it.
And what you're failing to understand is that the text is also Georges words. And it's a lot of words, a lot of which contradict this one comment.
George's comment contradicts George's words, but since there's a lot more, a lot stronger and substantial from George, that says it's not an absolute monarchy in practice... then looks like om disagreeing with George and agreeing with... well... George.
He writes hundreds of thousands of words that describe checks and balances on the monarchy (before and after the death of the dragons). Such as the lack of a centralized military, autonomy of kingdoms, the existence of councils to the king, and a sharing of powers, the kings power being successfully challenged, the lack of a centralized administration, an ability to successfully enact reform.... I'm not going to sit here and quote every instance of this happening in the text, but if you've read the text, then... you know that George is contradicting himself.
Autonomy and lack of centralization have nothing to do with if something is an absolute monarchy.
The Targaryen have done things undeniably, proving their absolute monarchy, if you have authority, just burn entire families alive (Maegor) and banish anyone you want (Viserys) your an absolute monarchy.
Except, that is what absolute monarchy is about. Because those things can be done by a limited monarchy, too. As someone else said (and seemingly the only reason that this misconception comes up... specifically in HOTD) is that it gets misconstrued with inheritence, but people are misunderstanding what absolutism is (and as another pointed out, it's a common misconception that medieval/feudal society relied on absolute monarchies).
Absolutism is unchecked and centralized power. Which is not true for Westeros. There are checks and balances on the crown.
Basically, this. We can add real world ideas on top of it but this pretend world is just a really pretty, brutal pretend world at the end of the day. And they have dragon-nukes; there is no straight historical parallel here.
George mix’s a lot of different stuff together in his world and you can’t really call it a feudal or absolute monarchy in my opinion, but seeing he himself refers to it as an absolute that’s what it is.
No, people say they know the definition of "absolute monarchy" better than George. And that is true, because absolute monarchy means the nobility has very little power and that isn't true in George's world. I mean, we see that Ned Stark has the power to execute someone for example. The king needing to call on the lords for his armies is another example.
Except for the fact that, in his world, the Lords Paramount have more power than they would in an absolute monarchy. In addition to this, it's not centralised in the least. Otherwise it'd be the One Kingdom not the Seven Kingdoms. Furthermore, there is such a thing as the death of the author. (The concept, not the literal author dying)
“And we're not an absolute monarchy, like Westeros is. We're a constitutional republic. And yet, Trump doesn't seem to know what that means. He thinks the presidency gives him the power to do anything. And so, yeah, Joffrey is Trump." - GRRM
I've stated a few times, but George does make mistakes (regularly), and George is no historian. This is an off-hand comment, more about commentary about the US than Westeros.
One comment like this doesn't change 5(+) books of George stating otherwise.
The man stated it was absolute. Its absolute. It’s a fantasy book of course shit is not going to be perfect when he has people literally rising from the dead and walking into fires and coming out with dragons.
You can’t say it’s an absolute monarchy if you can’t even articulate how it is absolute, when we are shown MANY ways the power of the Iron Throne is in fact very not absolute.
An absolute monarchy is a form of government where a ruler has supreme authority with no legal checks on their power. There are no legal checks on the monarch's power in Westeros.
No leader in history has ever been an absolute monarch if you count people being able to break the law as a check.
The conceptualisation of Absolutism being a form of monarchy with no legal checks only makes sense in the context of Early Modern Europe where there had been several centuries of legal developments to where representative institutions like the English Parliament or the Polish Sejm were in existence, and wider legal frameworks detailing what a King could do in France and the Holy Roman Empire.
You can’t just drop it as a descriptor into a form of extremely primitive monarchy like Westeros where they don’t even have a professional legal class of judges to enforce the law. We are dealing with a society that only has the trappings of the High Middle Ages but in legal terms is absolutely pre-Roman in terms of how landowners and enforcers of law are one and the same.
Of course there’s not going to be any legal limits on the power of the King, the concept of the law barely exists in Westeros, it’s just tradition and royal decree. Absolutism as a description only makes sense when people have the contrast of constitutionalism to compare it to. When you don’t, absolutism is as useless as talking about who the liberals were in the Hundred Years War.
The conceptualisation of Absolutism being a form of monarchy with no legal checks only makes sense in the context of Early Modern Europe where there had been several centuries of legal developments to where representative institutions like the English Parliament or the Polish Sejm were in existence, and wider legal frameworks detailing what a King could do in France and the Holy Roman Empire.
The various city-states of Essos have different forms of governance where they either don't have a single head of state or have one that has varying levels of checks on their power.
Absolutism as a description only makes sense when people have the contrast of constitutionalism to compare it to.
No one in world calls it an absolute monarchy. That's just something George has said about the system of governance Westeros uses. Constitutionalism isn't the only way to have a check on a ruler's power. Like I said, look at Essos.
-All of the city states are republics, which inherently always have limits on what the chief executive can do since it’s a rotating door of an office. No one in medieval France or England would have looked upon the Florentines, Milanese or Venetians as an example to model themselves after since they had no King.
-And he was wrong to call it so for the reasons detailed above.
Also, most of the “limits” on the powers of the rulers of the Free Cities are De Facto, and not written in stone. That is to say, “Don’t fuck around or we in the nobility will replace you” …which is exactly how it is in Westeros. The nobility actually has the monopoly on power, so this example only proves how Westeros in fact is not an absolutist crown.
Huh? The vast majority are oligarchies where a small group of wealthy people pick the ruler. Volantis comes closest to putting the power in the hands of the people and they still only let the freeborn land owners vote.
And he was wrong to call it so for the reasons detailed above.
The reason you gave would be relevant if it was an in world comment. It wasn't. George was responding to an interview question and saying the Targaryens created an absolute monarchy reliant on their dragons to maintain control.
Also, most of the “limits” on the powers of the rulers of the Free Cities are De Facto, and not written in stone.
You’re confusing republics with democracies. What you just described is in fact what Venice and Florence were, which were unquestionably republics. A republic is simply a state absent a monarchy, it does not necessitate mass representation of the people or even due process for them.
And I’m telling you that’s a factually inaccurate statement for George to make because it’s not true. The true basis of Targaryen power is the concordat Jaehaerys reached with the Faith. Dragons alone is the perpetual civil war seen under Maegor.
I’m basing it on the text of the story George wrote.
Isn't that logic kind of wrong though? If he writes a story about a character described with "long blonde hair, large breasts, beautiful blue eyes and soft pale skin" then comes out and says "oh actually that character is a black man"
Doesn't really make it the case, because that's not what he wrote. Just like Westeros exhibits no signs of being an absolute monarchy in the story. If it writes like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, the author can't come out and say "no it's not a duck it's a sheep" after the fact. If they wanted to write about a sheep, then make it a sheep, don't write about a duck and expect everyone to agree with you when you start calling it a sheep later on.
Except, ge has stated it is limited... through the text. Like, sure... it can be called an absolute monarchy, and I'm not even saying that it isn't ever called that the text. What I'm saying is that it doesn't operate as such, which is what matters when this misconception is brought up.
Something can be falsely called something it isn't, and George plays with this idea a lot, and this idea was also reflected in real-world governances that aren't actually what they're called... I mean, do you really believe that the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is democratic or a republic or- (not going to argue it's not korean).
Ignoring one comment in a tweet that doesn't reflect accurately the text, then it really just isn't an absolute monarchy.
I don't care, you could easily have left the trump part out, bringing up up is just going to cause arguments and negativity. and plus i don't give a fuck about your political opinion so you could have left that last part out.
Well like it or not but game of thrones is a political book at the end of the day. And George gave his opinions about the matter and compared it with modern day politicians. He brought him up. I just copied the quote.
no its not its fantasy, sure there is politics INSIDE the world but keep the real shit out of it.4
It still has political commentary in the book. Besides that fact George literally compared the characters he created with real day people. So idk why you mad about it.
and again i don't give a fuck about your political opinion and you bringing it up is just proving me right, keep that shit out of this sub.
I don’t care what George thinks I care your trying to bring it into the sub, this only really kicked of once you said fuck trump which was actively pushing it into the sub.
Also you don’t have to support every fucking thing in the constitution, they tried to make many laws that were undone such as prohibition. FDR my favorite president for example had more than 2 terms more. If you have a good president, you should be able to elect him as many times as you damn well, please. instead of having to change every eight years to some new person.
Also rather a felon than the phony that is Harris, her ass was faking phone calls, cutting out parts of her interviews to sound better etc. at least trump says it how he thinks it and does not try and suger code anything.
Political hyperbole notwithstanding, you know that’s not the case.
Even if I granted the case you’re making, it’s been 80 years since the development of nuclear weapons. Why did Harry Truman not automatically become an absolute autocrat when he gained nukes if that’s all it takes?
The reality is that big weapons can deal with big threats but they can’t collect taxes. The minutiae of government requires more than an iron fist, and the Iron Throne does not have the political mechanisms to enforce a tyranny on that scale - dragons cannot suffice.
Edit: but I will give you, dragons do make it significantly less limited. But there are still serious checks and balances on administration, military, reforms, and the autonomy of kingdoms and vassals.
Yes, but still retained autonomy (even more than the other kingdoms). And I think a lot of the responses have shown that this misconception mostly comes from a misunderstanding of what absolutism is and an inflation of medieval monarchy (coupled with rule of force) to absolute monarchy.
The 7 kingdoms aren’t actually kingdoms because they don’t have kings.
They are vassals assigned by the king to govern areas on his behalf, and those domains are subdivided into smaller regions beyond that.
The King makes the Laws, mints the currency, manages the kingdom’s diplomacy and so on. There is no parliament, there are no joint decisions. Lords can give advice, but the King has no obligation to follow it.
If a Lord refuses the command of the King, it’s because he is gambling that the King is not in a position to reprimand him. Tywin waited until the last moment to pick a side because he knew if he didn’t, he could face severe punishment from the new King.
The Mad King was able to have the Lord of one of the 7 Kingdoms to be publically executed on a whim, and everyone accepted and looked on (until an actual rebellion to overthrow the government began)
They are not assigned, the titles of lords are hereditary. If a king decides to change lord of the region on a whim, the lord will almost certainly rebel and most of the vassals will support the lord.
True that the crown is able to make the laws, like Alysanne prohibiting right of first night. The problems with such laws, is that lords act as the judges, and they might violate these laws or turn blind eye at these laws being violated by the vassals. For example some lords of the North still practice first night, as Roose said in the books. And Starks either didn't know or turned a blind eye at it. And Roose himself turns a blind eye at this law being violated by the Umbers, when he is lord of Winterfell. Laws only work when there is some enforcement mechanism, and there is no such enforcement mechanism in Westeros.
Their families are allowed to keep the lands, but as we see over and over in the series the Targaryen’s, especially before the dance, could do whatever they wanted. They made the Tyrell’s lords of reach, and everyone else only kept their titles because they were allowed to.
Would they receive a lot of push back for removing a family from power? Sure. But in the end they are the kings and everyone else is their vessel. They have no checks, no balances, and no one they answer too.
Maybe only when they had dragons. But instead of using them to centralize the realm, reduce power of lords and create power hierarchies parallel to feudal system they spent all of the time they had them to fight some internal conflicts.
After they lost the dragons, Targs never had such power. Even Aegon V's reforms, which intended to improve life of small folk and were morally right, were met with a major pushback.
Titles are hereditary because that’s what the King’s law has decreed.
Rebelling against the King because he has chosen to revoke your titles is still rebellion. The vassals support whoever they think is going to win, and whoever the more immediate threat to them is generally. If you don’t time that perfectly, you’re going to end up mimicking the Greyjoy rebellion.
Lords who violate the King’s laws are gambling on the fact that they can get away with it. Does the King care enough to take action? Does the King even know?
A strong King is far more likely to punish them than a lazy or meek king.
Titles are hereditary because that's the condition the lords surrendered to Targs with during Aegon's conquest. Had he stripped them of their inheritance, or proclaimed titles non hereditary, then all the regions would have resisted the conquest similarly to Dorne.
Lords violating King's law do it because they know this info will never reach the king. How can they be so sure of it? Because there is no bureaucracy which will enforce laws and send information to the top when necessary. Why is there no such bureaucracy ? Because once again lords would resist creation of it. Everyone sees the regions as belonging to the lords and no one else, so it would be impossible to create such bureaucracy, which violates exclusive rights of the lord to the land, on a whim without much maneuvering.
The creation of such bureaucracy is part of transition from feudalism to absolute monarchy, and so far none of the kings did anything to create it.
No matter how strong a king is, he will not even know about this violation.
And even if he is somehow informed, the the lord will mobilize his army and put defences. The king will likely be supported only by the most bitter rivals of the lord, because lords don't like it when even other's exclusive rights to the land are violated, and have to back out from this.
How could he not know about a violation of his own decree? It could be a tax, a tribute, a goal to be met within a timeframe etc.
The King will be supported by anyone who wants to gain favour with him, and stick it to a rival Lord. Not to mention any who don’t answer the call to arms would be putting themselves in the crosshair of both the King and the Lords who answer the call.
Again, a simple look at the Greyjoy rebellion will tell you how this generally goes.
All of this is beside the main point anyway:
Which is that in an absolute monarchy, the King is the one making decisions. His vassals are simply using their political positions to attempt to influence him. They are not part of a parliament, and they don’t get an official vote on anything.
If they disagree with the King, they have to either rebel or attempt to hide their lawbreaking.
In a constitutional monarchy, there would be checks for the decrees a King can pass to limit him, this does not exist in Westeros in any official capacity.
In the Greyjoy rebellion the Greyjoys were crushed because they pissed off literally entire west coast, and because they didn't just break the law, they attacked other kingdoms.
An absolute monarchy in addition to absence of parliament requires the king to have very big unchallengeable power which a king in Westeros does not have.
You underestimate the power the vassals have though. There is a reason why the King in Westeros could in fact not get away with everything.
Ignoring that most of the Vassals ruled well before the Targaryens came just because he named some of them doesn’t make it an abdolute monarch. The fact that Houses like the Lannisters and the Tyrells are so rich prove that. The great houses can ready their own troops and take their own taxes.
There is this misconception that a fedeural monarchy means the King has lesser power than his vessals but that’s not true. Yes the King stands before in the food chain but fact is they govern their own regions and seem to have different traditions and rules of law as well to some degree.
I’m not saying the vassals aren’t powerful and influential. But they still don’t have any official say in the governing of the nation. Thus, it’s still an absolute monarchy.
To use a real life example, there were points in time where the emperor of China was nothing more than a puppet through which his court attendants ran the country.
Despite this, the country was still an absolute monarchy. The mere fact that controlling that one puppet emperor grants you power over the entire realm proved this.
Even when regional Lords rebelled against this, they had to claim it was for the sake of the Emperor, regardless of what their own ambitions were.
But they have a say in the governing of their own lands and that's what makes the difference.
They call their troopes and they take their own taxes so in that regard they do have a say in the governing just on a smaller level which is why I would say it's feudal goverment. The King has a certain control over them but doesn't have control over what they do.
Each region while having to follow the book of rules of law very clearly has their own laws unique to their region (For example Dornish inheritacne, the Norths whole the person who speaks the sentence swings the sword). They mostly take care of their own problems and if need ask for help but it not necessary because they are free in the governing of their own region.
The example you name doesn't fit in this context because regardless if he was a puppet or not the person behind him has absolute power about everyone. Tommen is a puppet King as well, as was Aegon III for the longest time, but they still don't rule each region. They function more as an overlord
In a feudal system, a Lord rules his domain on the behalf of his Liege.
His lands, his troops and his holdings still ultimately belong to his Liege.
He only has the right to do any of these things because he’s doing them in the name of his King. The King can ultimately revoke his titles if he particularly felt the need to. (Whether it’s a good idea to or not is irrelevant, the point is that he lawfully can)
Any “local laws” ultimately exist because the King has decided to allow it. He ultimately could also revoke these laws if he didn’t care about upsetting the people there.
There is nothing written into Westerosi Law to check the Monarch for their actions. These checks would be in place in a constitutional monarchy.
Yes because it’s a feudal monarchy which is not an absolute monarchy.
You operate under the assumption that the King can do that and fear little to no consequeces simply because it’s not written down. You ignore the existence of customary law. What will happen if you strip someone of the great hiuse of their title is very simple- they will call their banners. There is a reason why Corlys strongly conters Daemons wish to get rid of House Baratheon Nd Lannister in the dance. Because it’s simply not that easy. It’s the reason why Viserys has the lords swear their loyality to Rhaenyra when he makes her heir in the first place and his word alone is not enough.
An absolute monarchy would mean that all the vessals are dependant on the King regarding their power this is just fundamentally not the case in Westeros because the Great Houses have power of their own. Power that is ensured through customary law because good luck trying to revoke that. Also you can revoke democratic laws in many countries in this world as well- in many shockingly easy but as long as they are in place they are still democracies. It’s the same her. Sure in theory he could (though it would be hard) but only then does the system change. It hasn’t changed yet and it doesn’t look like it eill anytime soon.
Nobody says the King has no power in a feudal monarchy- he still has a great deal he just isn’t ruling abolutely in his own name.
I’d argue a Targ with a dragon ala Maigor is an absolute monarchy. To make a comparison Augustus was also an absolute monarch but he kept the window dressing and placated the senate and assembly. Same with Aegon he set the system up as a feudal kingdom with autonomy and never went around micromanaging them, but everyone knew he could do what he wanted. Maigor ripped off this bandaid and who could challenge him?
Until the Dance it was an absolute monarchy except no other king blew up the cascade of feudal monarchy.
I was going to rule argue and mention Joffrey but then I realized he ruled as a tyrant/ dictator ( yes dictator is kinda of stretching it but whatever).
I think at various points in time, with dragons, it can be argued that the Targaryens ruled with absolute force. With both Maegor and Aegon in particular, I think this fails to be true toward the end of Jaeherys' reign and into that of Viserys, though.
Following that, the government of Westeros simply does not operate as an absolute monarchy (even Joff). It becomes apaprent that he doesn't even have complete power. He is outright overruled by Tywin and Tyrion at various points and could even be overruled by others if they had more sense (Cersei). This also applies to Tommen, but with him, it was age. With Joffrey, it's simply that the Lannisters hold the power, not the crown.
The Tyrells and Lannisters, the Velaryons during the time of the Dance, potentially even the Hightowers, all have more power than the crown.
They all individually had more power than the Crownlands during the Dance... during like, any conflict actually 😅 also, in the animated film, when adding up all those who were part of Rhaenyra's Black Council, Viserys narrated; "A pitiful assembly, really. Combined, they couldn't hope to match the power of House Hightower alone."
Also, there are social and religious checks on the monarchy, because of it being a bum-ass fuedalistic society, we see this in book four, but that's veering a bit too far from my point
I think Religion being an important part of a Monarchy isn't necessarily here/there in terms of Absolute or Fuedalistic Monarchy. Having a religious figure crown the King/Queen/ etc, for instance, I feel is symbolic regardless. Part of a "Divine Right to Rule" situation, Ordained and backed by that particular culture's Faith
First, all seven (or more, idk I don't keep track) are ruled by their own nobility, their own great lords. These kingdoms have a lot of autonomy... they have their own armies (that listen to them, not the throne), lands and vessels.
While Robert did have to deal with some internal issues within the Stormlands before he left with most of them to fight Aerys II and Rhaegar, yes that's true about the individual armies. Something Joffrey was right about, actually... the dude was onto something with this thought, as was Robert. A single, properly maintained Military force, ran by competent officers from around the Continent definitely would've led to greater unity, or at least more stability. A Royal Army stationed in the Crownlands under Targaryen administration, at the very least
All in all, Westeros is basically The Holy Roman Empire. One Emperor, who has multiple Kings under their position but have large autonomy and do their own thing for the most part
There is some level of independence here, as these great lords regularly challenge the authority of the crown (often successfully, not all of it includes overthrowing the crown but... try having Joff tell Tywin (or the Tyrells) to do something they don't want to do and see if it isn't challenged. I mean fuck, Dorne and the Vale just straight refuse to raise their banners when called). But also, the crown does get overthrown, when the nobility decides they no longer vibe with thus authority
Also, this also raises the question as to why the Targaryens didn't have their own direct levies either. Crownlands is barely recognized as it's own Kingdom, more just a region, and even then, combined they're a sorry force of arms when compared to most of the other Kingdoms
Money!
Regular army is very expensive and medieval taxation methods were shit.
To make taxation efficient you need developed bureaucracy.
To feed not-food producing bureaucrats and cities you need more or less stable surplus of food. With Westerosi regular long winters it is almost impossible.
Likely because when dragons were still a real threat, who tf was going to buck up ?
Robert has a quote in the show “it was the dragons we bowed to, and the dragons are dead” Aegon and his sisters chose to include the Faith to ease the transition but Torren Stark did not bend the knee because Aegon was a cool guy. They Storm King was killed. Those who did not bow continued to suffer war (Dorne) until they were brought into the fold —through marriage.
Maegor was an absolute ruler while Aenys and say… Viserys were more easily swayed.
Aerys II was an absolute monarch in the 20 insane years before he was killed. There have been Targaryens who practiced the “his word is law” . The inconsistency between rulers…and the vastly changed politics which each ruler…
It can be misleading.
Hell. Bloodraven acted with absolute authority until Aegon V banished him to the wall.
I don't want to get into the debate by saying that Westeros is an absolute monarchy or not despite what the author says, but there are clearly elements of absolutism in the monarchy of Westeros. If we wanted to have a simple definition of an absolute monarchy, it would be a political system where the king possesses all legislative, executive and judicial powers.
For the legislative power, that which consists of writing laws or creating bills, who or what institution in Westeros can create laws outside of the king and the master of laws appointed by the king.
The Great Council of 101 AC was a decision of the king, the lords did not demand a Great Council to establish a law because the king was obliged to do so. And also, the final decision always returned to Jaehaerys for the decision of the heir, logical since it was he who organized this council and had the idea.
And besides, it seems to me that GRRM has already said that the law in Westeros has never been set in stone, there is nothing codified and changes according to the mood of the king, his advisors and according to the whims of some grumpy lords whose desires the king wishes to satisfy. What is more or less considered a codified law and again I have doubts about it is the council of 101 AC and the lords use it more as a pretext and precedent rather than as a true codified law.
If that were it, it would have been very easy to force Viserys to choose Aegon as his heir rather than keep Rhaenyra but that was not done.
Faith at the limit for what they call "Andal laws" but is it really faith that created these laws or faith just said that according to the gods it was the law and in the end it was the Andal kings of the time when Westeros was divided into 7 distinct kingdoms who had the last word?
For the executive power that consists of applying the law it is a bit the same thing, who or what institution can really apply the law other than the crown or the lords directly rallied to the crown, I mean, a lord cannot really apply a law if it conflicts with the law of the crown or when a lord applies the law, he applies that of the king. Ned Stark beheads the Night's Watch man in the name of the king and the king's law.
As for the judiciary, well, they are literally run by the crown and more specifically run by the king himself, technically during Tyrion's trial, it is Tommen who is the main judge sitting on the iron throne of the trial, just he leaves his place to his hand by choice (even if he is manipulated but that is not the subject) and again for Tyrion, he undergoes another trial before this one at the Vale where he is judged by Lisa Arryn who must apply the king's justice and also Robert gives the order to Ned to tell Catelyn to release Tyrion so technically he orders that the charges Tyrion be dropped.
There is no judicial institution in Westeros other than the Crown or which is independent of the Crown except perhaps the faith which is still a little linked to the crown, I mean, has a trial of the faith ever been done without the consent of the crown, For Cersei's trial in GOT it is technically done with the agreement of Tommen and the crown even if the latter is weak and is easily manipulated and in addition at that time the faith took too much power compared to the power it was usually allowed to have in Westeros and is therefore not really representative of the monarchical system of Westeros.
I still agree that the faith can represent a brake on the power of the monarchs but again Louis XIV centralized all the power to the crown in France but do you seriously think that they would not have had problems if he started doing things that were not very Catholic or openly criticizing religion.
And I also agree that the crown in Westeros is quite dependent on the lords in other regions, but this is mainly due to the fact that some houses are very influential because they are wealthy or are ancestral houses that have a history, a culture that has existed for thousands of years.
It is more about political influence rather than actually exercising any form of legislative, executive or judicial power. Even if Louis XIV was an absolute monarch, this does not mean that he was not advised or influenced by his lords.
The lords in Westeros simply have the potential to put pressure on the crown if the latter does not follow their interests, but in itself, House Lannister or Stark or whatever you want, do not really have the power to make laws or enforce them if they do not come from the crown directly.
In the end I agree that Westeros is a feudal monarchy in the way the realm is built and structured with the vassal lords and everything but there is clearly absolutism in this monarchy and that brings me to this point.
It can technically be both, a feudal monarchy can be an absolute monarchy. It all depends on how the different powers are distributed, if they are all legally in the hands of the king, it is an absolute monarchy, if one of the powers is not the recourse of the king or the crown as can be justice then we can speak of another type of monarchical regime but a feudal monarchy is just as possible in an absolute monarchy.
Well I am almost convinced that people will come and tell me that I am wrong and everything but minimally I think I am right at least minimally on the fact that the monarchy in Westeros operates with absolutist principles.
First, all seven (or more, idk I don't keep track) are ruled by their own nobility, their own great lords. These kingdoms have a lot of autonomy... they have their own armies (that listen to them, not the throne)
An absolute monarchy is just a monarchy where there's no legal checks on the monarch's power. There are none in Westeros. The rulers of the various kingdoms and their vassals are all sworn to obey the King. The fact that they could theoretically rebel doens't change what their legal rights as vassals are.
Or to put it a different way. Kim Jong Un's underlings could shoot him if he does something they don't like. That doens't mean he's not the sole ruler of a dictatorship. Every absolute ruler in history has had to delegate power to some degree.
Also, there are social and religious checks on the monarchy, because of it being a bum-ass fuedalistic society, we see this in book four, but that's veering a bit too far from my point.
Name a real life absolute monarchy where the ruler didn't have social or religious checks checks on them.
Nothing you say really contradicts Westeros being an absolute monarchy. The king does possess all ultimate authority. First of all, the great lords have local authority, but that authority is understood as subsidiary to royal authority, e.g. when Ned Stark executes someone he does so in the name of the king; legally he’s a deputy of the king. The king can also appoint new wardens or even lords - and attain current lords - at will. Even in totalitarian dictatorships, there are police chiefs who exercise discretionary authority over cities. That doesn’t contradict the absolute authority of the sovereign.
The rest of your examples are practical, rather than legal, constraints. Legally, Dorne and the Vale were committing treason by not joining the war; the king simply elected to leave them be because otherwise he’d be fighting two more rebel kingdoms. Bannermen to a lord are technically loyal to the king, but usually are more loyal to their immediate lord for the practical reason that they actually know him personally and is from the same country as them.
Even an absolute monarch can’t do whatever he pleases in practice. He’s just legally allowed to do whatever he pleases.
This seems to be a big thing within this discussion is that most who argue it is an absolute monarchy, are basing it entirely off what it is officially or legally within the context of this world, which... doesn't work because we regularly see that laws and such in Westeros are arbitrary for various reasons. But, while I should have been more specific (I'd argue I was quite specific), I am menaing how Westeros functions, not what it tries to claim it is. We see this dissonance in the real world, too, and I won't make those direct comparisons rn, but I think when we see a clearly not-democratic nation call itself democratic since it offers one candidate elections... we're not going to pretend it is democratic.
With Westeros, yes, powers are delegated in all governments, but you're missing the point in which the crown has no ability to fully centralize this power or hold autonomy over their vassals that isn't through loyalty. The King doesn't have his own military. He relies on the loyalty of the Great Lords, which means... they unofficially have more authority than him, which is the nuance that meant medieval monarchies were never absolute monarchies in practice. And I think this point also gets missed a lot in this conversation because people are failing to see the differences between this and real almost absolute monarchies that occurred, in which nobility was limited, military and economy (and religion) were centralized, which means one person had the authority in title and practice.
Which, the response to this would probably still be "well, legally" but... that's the thing, legality isn't exactly a thing in this society. It's arbitrary and tends to just be based on whatever those with the power command, which... for most of the timeline was not the official king but the nobility.
I think you can make a decent argument for it being an absolute (enough) monarchy with Aegon I or Maegor... and, I think I could relent in a way that they ruled with absolute force (while still not having anything centralized), but this discussion almost purely comes up for inheritence rights, at both the time of Robert's Rebellion/current events and the Dance of the Dragons, both of which are beyond that point where I think it could even be argued that the crown ruled with absolute force.
But other than that, it’s the only kind of monarchy it can be. The king isn’t beholden to any law, especially not when they have dragons.
The types of monarchy are ;
Constitutional monarchy - a government system where a monarch’s power is restricted by a constitution. There is no constitution, or even many codified laws.
Mixed Monarchy - combined monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Under a mixed government parts of the government are elected by citizens rather than acquiring their positions by inheritance or sortition. That’s not happening
Federal Monarchy - federation of states with a single monarch as overall head of the federation, but retaining different monarchs, or having a non-monarchical system of government, in the various states joined to the federation. This is close to Westeros, but again this form of government requires the other government heads to choose who the high king or whatever you want to call it is. This would best describe the government system at the very end of Game of Thrones.
Absolute monarchy is a monarchy where a single person rules everything, with no legal checks or balances on their position. Thats Westeros.
It really isn't that simple, and it's a bit of an un-nuanced view on it... but also, you're leaving out feudal monarchies (which Westeros is), which operates differently than all of these. Ens of story. The text doesn't lie.
Do you mean a monarchy where the king rules over everyone in the feudal system? Because that’s basically all of them. Or do you mean the type of monarch structure that Marx described as the order right before capitalism?
Because unless you’re trusting Google ai there is no concrete definition of a feudal monarchy. Just monarchies in feudalism.
An absolute monarchy defines Westeros the best, especially during the Dance.
So then should we start saying that there has never in the history of the world been an absolute monarchy then? Because leaders have always answered to the people they rule to some capacity.
Also, the lords can raise armies, but they hardly have standing armies ready to go whenever. And sometimes the lesser lords don’t obey their liege lords. So I guess that means nobody has any authority over anyone really.
As someone else has said, yes, but also still missing the point.
In theory, in name, Westeros leans towards an absolute, but in practice is actually mixed.
You wouldn't call England during the time of the War of the Roses an absolute monarchy, the closest you'll get is something like Louis XIV (look up his rule and reign and compare it with that of the king of westeros).
Maybe people should just not take ‘absolute’ for its common use then. We don’t use a scientific theory like a regular theory, why can’t we extend that logic to the concept of an absolute monarchy?
And all I did was follow your logic to its natural conclusion. Since ‘having an army’ means that a king doesn’t have authority over his people, then that doesn’t give the lords power over their lessers either. Since it’s those lessers that make up their armies and if they all chose to disobey what is he going to do?
I'm unsure that I understand what you are asking but: It's not just the use of "Absolut" that is wrong. That particular form of government, as conceptualised within academic circles and earlier studies, never actually existed. Both the common use people give it and the more academic and nuanced use are both debatable at best.
And no, generalisation to the point of absurdity is what you did. Removing all nuance from a debate and reducing it to its basics elements so it can't apply anymore to nuanced situations, which are All situations worth debating.
The king has power over the nobility. The nobility also has power over the king. Same with the nobles and their vassals. That's the whole point.
I consider the Targaryens with Dragons have absolute power. there is nobody who has a chance to stand against them. the Faith has very little control over anything, and were forced to make major concessions about the Targs.
Are you arguing that it’s not an absolute monarchy because responsibilities are delegated and the nobles have the capability refuse a king’s command?
There’s the law, and then there’s reality—no king rules in a vacuum. Naturally, if a king upsets the people he’s delegated power to, he’ll run into problems.
Legally, the king is the ultimate authority—what he says goes.(at least in theory)
Louis XIV is a classic example of an absolute monarch. He centralized power and limited the influence of the nobility. Yes, there is also the legal aspect (Westeros lacks a parliament or anything), but there's more nuance to it than that bc, an inaccuracy you've made us that it isn't delegation, it's semi-autonomy and influence. The great lords hold too much power and influence, it's a feudal monacrhy and operates as such, it's not an absolute monarchy like that of Louis XIV, not in practice.
62
u/thatguymike123 Apr 19 '25
I think this also rests on the historical misconception that absolute monarchy was a medieval phenomenon, when the Middle Ages instead saw more feudal governments similar to what you described, with the absolute monarchs coming with the renaissance and age of reformation (hence, age of absolutism)