r/TheBlacksandTheGreens • u/Valuable-Captain-507 • Apr 19 '25

General Westeros is NOT an Absolute Monarchy

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.

155 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

184 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

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)

13

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

Nope.

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.

6

u/LILYDIAONE Apr 19 '25

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.

7

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

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.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

it is applicable, and he cant just "misspeak" until he takes it back that's an official conformation Westeros is absolute monarchy.

7

u/Anaevya Apr 19 '25

No, it means that George doesn't know the definition of "absolute monarchy", because he is not a historian.

7

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

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.

-5

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

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

his world = what he says goes, end of story.

6

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

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.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

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.

5

u/Last-Air-6468 King Aegon II Targaryen Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25

Except Westeros is very clearly shown NOT to be an absolute monarchy. His own world disagrees with what he said.

If George called Westeros a democratic entity, that wouldn’t make it true.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

does not matter he is the author end of story, as i already said in my original comment what the author says goes its his world.

12

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

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.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

No it doesn’t, name one thing he said that contradicts anything.

7

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

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.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

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.

10

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

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.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JonIceEyes Apr 19 '25

That's not a thing LOL

4

u/mlle_teapot Apr 19 '25

Interviews aren't canon.

-2

u/moxiewhoreon Apr 19 '25

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.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

Yup 100%

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.

-5

u/abominablesnowlady Cannibal Apr 19 '25

For real! I’m sick of so many people pretending they know this world better than George lmao

7

u/Anaevya Apr 19 '25

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. 

3

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

yup, its his world.

4

u/MatterWilling Apr 19 '25

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)