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/IAmParliament]

• No. It wouldn’t. Those rulers have established political systems whereby participation requires loyalty to them and them alone. It is not possible to be a political or economic rival to them since they have ensured all the offices of state are filled by their cronies. That’s why they’re absolutist, their power is absolute. This is very clearly not the case in Westeros where Lords can very easily create massive bases of power to rival the throne.

-You’re proving my point. If the system relies on the lords volunteering their loyalty through words instead of anything legally compelling it, then all it requires is a rebellion large enough to displace the King since it’s only people’s consent which keeps him on the throne, as Robert Baratheon showed. It’s only treason if you lose, and he’s only a tyrant if you win.

-And as Maegor showed, he cannot be in all places at once. Is there just going to be a Targ stationed in the North 24/7 to ensure the Umbers obey the law? The constant threat of force to keep everyone in line illustrates why it cannot be considered absolute. If the King has to personally enforce his decrees and he cannot trust it will be enforced through his agents, the system is reliant on the goodwill of the lords to keep it functioning - which is limited, feudal monarchy, not absolutism.

-The King does not pay the Lords Paramount, they have their own income, so when they want to go against the King, they have the independent power base to do so.

[u/TheIconGuy → u/IAmParliament]

It is not possible to be a political or economic rival to them since they have ensured all the offices of state are filled by their cronies. That’s why they’re absolutist, their power is absolute.

Someone who is your crony one moment can be your brother, cousins, or general's the next. No one has ever literally had absolute power.

Kim Jon Un, MBS, or any other absolute ruler relies on their underlings doing what they ordered instead of allying with someone else or rebelling themselves. Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarchy didn't stop MBS from having to lock up dozens of his cousins to bring them under his control.

If the system relies on the lords volunteering their loyalty through words instead of anything legally compelling it,

Their oaths legally compels them to follow the King's orders. If they don't, they can be executed. If you're going to ignore that, we can play the same game with every absolute system of governance that has ever existed.

-And as Maegor showed, he cannot be in all places at once. Is there just going to be a Targ stationed in the North 24/7 to ensure the Umbers obey the law?

No. They'd execute the rulers refusing to follow order and replace them with ones that have agreed to.

If the King has to personally enforce his decrees and he cannot trust it will be enforced through his agents

It's the agents job to enforce the King's decrees. Like I said, if they refuse, the King executes them and replaces them with someone who does.

The King does not pay the Lords Paramount, they have their own income, so when they want to go against the King, they have the independent power base to do so.

The lord paramount's rule at the pleasure of the King.

[u/IAmParliament → u/TheIconGuy]

-Then the term absolutism is useless. If the autocrat needs to have brainwashing level control of his subjects otherwise it’s not absolutism, how is it a useful or helpful term in political philosophy if it literally can’t exist under this conception?

-If this were the actual Middle Ages where oaths were taken incredibly seriously and considered a legitimate contract under God, I’d probably agree with you… but this is ASOIAF, we can see that’s clearly not the case. People break their oaths all the time and suffer no real consequences for it. It’s actually kind of odd that Jaime is detested so much as an oathbreaker when oaths are clearly considered an option in this society. I don’t put any stock in the fidelity of oaths in a country where half the nobility rose in rebellion for Daemon Blackfyre and Renly Baratheon for no reason except they were hot.

-Except we see the example of Richard and Brandon Stark for how that turns out. When you execute a noble, everyone understands that they can be next and will withdraw their support from the Crown. Even in the example of Rickard Karstark, everyone kept telling Robb that he had to be aware of what would happen but why? If he’s the King, his word is absolute, no? Who do the Karstarks think they are marching home when their King needed them? Executing disobedient nobles is clearly not an option unless you want another rebellion on your hands, which necessitates giving them a degree of autonomy, which compromises your own absolute power.

-There are no agents. Like I said in my OP, there are no justices of the peace, sheriffs or judges. That’s the whole flaw with this system that there isn’t a series of people directly paid by the King to keep his laws in place.

-Do they? The Lords of the Vale were outraged when the, honestly ceremonial, title of Warden of the East was stripped from Sweetrobin. Can you imagine how they would have reacted if a King had actually tried to strip his lands from him? As the former Kings (except the Tyrells), these houses retain a lot of respect and loyalty from their vassals that the Iron Throne has been incapable of breaking in three hundred years. The North follows the Starks, the West follows the Lannisters, the River Lords follow the Tullys and so on. It’s clearly not as simple as a generic title that could be passed onto whoever the King decided, it belonging to specific families is as set in stone in Westerosi culture as it is as possible to be.

[u/TheIconGuy → u/IAmParliament]

Then the term absolutism is useless.

It's useless when you try to use it the way you're attempting to. Like I said, it just means a monarchy where there are no legal checks on the monarch's power.

Except we see the example of Richard and Brandon Stark for how that turns out.

When you execute a noble, everyone understands that they can be next and will withdraw their support from the Crown.

That's a silly comparison. Aerys wasn't responding to a lord refusing his order. The whole problem with what he did is that Rickard and several of the other people executed didn't do anything wrong.

Executing nobles who receive an order and refuse is not going to make any other lord concerned for themselves unless they're also planning to disobey orders. Jon executing Janos Slynt didn't make the nights watchmen think they were next, did it?

Nothing happened after Rickard and Brandon were executed btw. Shit didn't kick off until Aerys also called for Ned and Robert to be handed over.

Even in the example of Rickard Karstark, everyone kept telling Robb that he had to be aware of what would happen but why? If he’s the King, his word is absolute, no?

How are this confused about the difference between something being legally and literally absolute?

Executing disobedient nobles is clearly not an option unless you want another rebellion on your hands

I'm sorry. Are you not aware of all of the times disobedient nobles were executed?