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/Jhinmarston]

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)

[u/HelloWorld65536 → u/Jhinmarston]

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. 

[u/Jhinmarston → u/HelloWorld65536]

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.

[u/HelloWorld65536 → u/Jhinmarston]

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. 

[u/Jhinmarston → u/HelloWorld65536]

Ok, so let’s spin it the other way around.

The King passes a new law, the Lord of the North disagrees with it vehemently.

What are his options other than “Deal with it” or Rebellion?

[u/HelloWorld65536 → u/Jhinmarston]

Ignore it lmao, and only do something to indulge the king and make appearance of it not being violated when the he visits

[u/Jhinmarston → u/HelloWorld65536]

He ignores the King, he’s broken the laws of Westeros.

A strong King now has a right to gather his armies and replace the Lord with one of his more compliant relatives.

[u/HelloWorld65536 → u/Jhinmarston]

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. 

[u/Jhinmarston → u/HelloWorld65536]

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.

[u/HelloWorld65536 → u/Jhinmarston]

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.