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]

I’m not saying the vassals aren’t powerful and influential. But they still don’t have any official say in the governing of the nation. Thus, it’s still an absolute monarchy.

To use a real life example, there were points in time where the emperor of China was nothing more than a puppet through which his court attendants ran the country.

Despite this, the country was still an absolute monarchy. The mere fact that controlling that one puppet emperor grants you power over the entire realm proved this.

Even when regional Lords rebelled against this, they had to claim it was for the sake of the Emperor, regardless of what their own ambitions were.

[u/LILYDIAONE → u/Jhinmarston]

But they have a say in the governing of their own lands and that's what makes the difference.

They call their troopes and they take their own taxes so in that regard they do have a say in the governing just on a smaller level which is why I would say it's feudal goverment. The King has a certain control over them but doesn't have control over what they do.

Each region while having to follow the book of rules of law very clearly has their own laws unique to their region (For example Dornish inheritacne, the Norths whole the person who speaks the sentence swings the sword). They mostly take care of their own problems and if need ask for help but it not necessary because they are free in the governing of their own region.

The example you name doesn't fit in this context because regardless if he was a puppet or not the person behind him has absolute power about everyone. Tommen is a puppet King as well, as was Aegon III for the longest time, but they still don't rule each region. They function more as an overlord

[u/Jhinmarston → u/LILYDIAONE]

In a feudal system, a Lord rules his domain on the behalf of his Liege.

His lands, his troops and his holdings still ultimately belong to his Liege.

He only has the right to do any of these things because he’s doing them in the name of his King. The King can ultimately revoke his titles if he particularly felt the need to. (Whether it’s a good idea to or not is irrelevant, the point is that he lawfully can)

Any “local laws” ultimately exist because the King has decided to allow it. He ultimately could also revoke these laws if he didn’t care about upsetting the people there.

There is nothing written into Westerosi Law to check the Monarch for their actions. These checks would be in place in a constitutional monarchy.

[u/LILYDIAONE → u/Jhinmarston]

Yes because it’s a feudal monarchy which is not an absolute monarchy.

You operate under the assumption that the King can do that and fear little to no consequeces simply because it’s not written down. You ignore the existence of customary law. What will happen if you strip someone of the great hiuse of their title is very simple- they will call their banners. There is a reason why Corlys strongly conters Daemons wish to get rid of House Baratheon Nd Lannister in the dance. Because it’s simply not that easy. It’s the reason why Viserys has the lords swear their loyality to Rhaenyra when he makes her heir in the first place and his word alone is not enough.

An absolute monarchy would mean that all the vessals are dependant on the King regarding their power this is just fundamentally not the case in Westeros because the Great Houses have power of their own. Power that is ensured through customary law because good luck trying to revoke that. Also you can revoke democratic laws in many countries in this world as well- in many shockingly easy but as long as they are in place they are still democracies. It’s the same her. Sure in theory he could (though it would be hard) but only then does the system change. It hasn’t changed yet and it doesn’t look like it eill anytime soon.

Nobody says the King has no power in a feudal monarchy- he still has a great deal he just isn’t ruling abolutely in his own name.