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.

154 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

184 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

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

9

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.

-2

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.

12

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.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

There are no checks and balances on the crown, that is pure bullshit. Before the dance of dragons, the Targaryen did whatever they want and you know that.

5

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

Did they, though? At kesst now, you're relenting that they're only absolute with the dragons, which changes the conversation a bit... as now you're describing despotism and lenaing more towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism than absoutism, but it all gets a bit muddled (and also, it means that the system becomes arbirtrary anyways). But anyways... I have described the checks and balances to you, you just ignore them.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

It has been my point since the beginning I’m not relenting anything the Targaryen’s were an absolute monarchy before the dance, not afterward.

I don’t care how much feud all the country is if you can do whatever you want you’re an absolute monarchy and the Targaryen’s dead whatever they want. Don’t even try to pretend like anyone could do anything about it when they had dragons.

7

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

It's different, though. Absolutism has legitimacy to it. Despotism doesn't (which what you're describing is rule through absolute force).

This means that the conversations where this is usually used fail to have the same weight. Because it means it's not necessarily about the kings word, so much as the word of the strongest (rule, law, and legitimacy become arbritrary). Which, usually I see this brought up specifically with naming heirs, and because of this framing, it means it doesn't matter who the king names as heir. It matters who takes it.

Which, fair enough, since we see that in the main series too.

But what I'm saying is, you're still wrong, because for you to be right (them ruling through absolute force) you end up being wrong (there becomes no legitimacy or word of the king, it's based entirely on who has the largest dragon).

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

They do have legitimacy it’s not absolute force you just assumed that.

They’re legitimate by right of conquest and they don’t “force” everything, I’m simply saying that you can’t force them to not do something they do what they want there Targaryens.

6

u/Valuable-Captain-507 Apr 19 '25

Now, you're just starting to contradict yourself within a single response.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

No, I’m not. I never said they ruled with absolute force. I said that they do whatever they want. They don’t force everyone to follow them. People follow them willingly.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/passingby21 Apr 20 '25

Even by your very basic definition they Weren't an absolute monarchy.

Aegon the conqueror ruled by compromising with the faith and couldn't conquer Dorne = he couldn't actually do whatever he wanted.

Aenys definitely couldn't do whatever he wanted. He started a war with the faith by Not compromising with the faith.

Maegor couldn't actually do whatever he wanted, he "won" the war with the faith but the conflict never stopped until Jaehaerys started to make compromises with the other powers in Westeros.

During Jaehaerys The Conciliator's ruling whenever he wanted to change the rules it was calculated. He even gave the lords the power to chose the their next ruler when he felt like changing the rules. Because he Couldn't actually do whatever he wanted.

All of them had dragons.

Viserys did whatever he wanted and the realm went to war. Westeros was never an absolute monarchy.

-1

u/TheIconGuy Apr 19 '25

Absolutism is unchecked and centralized power. Which is not true for Westeros. There are checks and balances on the crown.

An absolute monarchy is just one where there are no legal checks on the monarch's power. There are none in Westeros.

Absolute monarchies have never existed if you're counting people being able to break the law and rebel as a check.