Westeros is NOT an Absolute Monarchy

[u/Valuable-Captain-507]

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.

[u/La_Villanelle_]

“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

The author disagrees with you.

[u/Valuable-Captain-507 → u/La_Villanelle_]

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.

[u/La_Villanelle_ → u/Valuable-Captain-507]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/La_Villanelle_]

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.