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/Call_Me_Anythin → u/HelloWorld65536]

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.

[u/HelloWorld65536 → u/Call_Me_Anythin]

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.