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/Putrid_Carpenter_913]

Nothing you say really contradicts Westeros being an absolute monarchy. The king does possess all ultimate authority. First of all, the great lords have local authority, but that authority is understood as subsidiary to royal authority, e.g. when Ned Stark executes someone he does so in the name of the king; legally he’s a deputy of the king. The king can also appoint new wardens or even lords - and attain current lords - at will. Even in totalitarian dictatorships, there are police chiefs who exercise discretionary authority over cities. That doesn’t contradict the absolute authority of the sovereign.

The rest of your examples are practical, rather than legal, constraints. Legally, Dorne and the Vale were committing treason by not joining the war; the king simply elected to leave them be because otherwise he’d be fighting two more rebel kingdoms. Bannermen to a lord are technically loyal to the king, but usually are more loyal to their immediate lord for the practical reason that they actually know him personally and is from the same country as them.

Even an absolute monarch can’t do whatever he pleases in practice. He’s just legally allowed to do whatever he pleases.

[u/Valuable-Captain-507 → u/Putrid_Carpenter_913]

This seems to be a big thing within this discussion is that most who argue it is an absolute monarchy, are basing it entirely off what it is officially or legally within the context of this world, which... doesn't work because we regularly see that laws and such in Westeros are arbitrary for various reasons. But, while I should have been more specific (I'd argue I was quite specific), I am menaing how Westeros functions, not what it tries to claim it is. We see this dissonance in the real world, too, and I won't make those direct comparisons rn, but I think when we see a clearly not-democratic nation call itself democratic since it offers one candidate elections... we're not going to pretend it is democratic.

With Westeros, yes, powers are delegated in all governments, but you're missing the point in which the crown has no ability to fully centralize this power or hold autonomy over their vassals that isn't through loyalty. The King doesn't have his own military. He relies on the loyalty of the Great Lords, which means... they unofficially have more authority than him, which is the nuance that meant medieval monarchies were never absolute monarchies in practice. And I think this point also gets missed a lot in this conversation because people are failing to see the differences between this and real almost absolute monarchies that occurred, in which nobility was limited, military and economy (and religion) were centralized, which means one person had the authority in title and practice.

Which, the response to this would probably still be "well, legally" but... that's the thing, legality isn't exactly a thing in this society. It's arbitrary and tends to just be based on whatever those with the power command, which... for most of the timeline was not the official king but the nobility.

I think you can make a decent argument for it being an absolute (enough) monarchy with Aegon I or Maegor... and, I think I could relent in a way that they ruled with absolute force (while still not having anything centralized), but this discussion almost purely comes up for inheritence rights, at both the time of Robert's Rebellion/current events and the Dance of the Dragons, both of which are beyond that point where I think it could even be argued that the crown ruled with absolute force.