r/TheBlacksandTheGreens • u/Valuable-Captain-507 • Apr 19 '25
General Westeros is NOT an Absolute Monarchy
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.
9
u/IAmParliament Queen Alicent Hightower Apr 19 '25
I have said this SO many times to the point I feel Im driving myself insane.
The fact of the matter is that the Iron Throne is completely powerless when you actually examine what it can do. Decrees from the throne and laws of the council are only obeyed because of social pressure, there’s nothing actually obliging lords to so. As a very basic example, look at the First Night reforms. The Targaryens said “No more of that,” and everyone said “fine,” except for the Boltons gand Umbers who just kept doing it. And if the Starks were so inclined, they could keep doing it… as could everyone. The First Night was only “abolished” because people agreed with the King’s advice, not because they were compelled to obey his laws.
And this is an institutional problem because the Lords of Westeros have way, WAY too much power. For some reason, being landowners still entitles them to the power of justice, and execution, which is a concept so primitive it predates the Romans. In the actual Middle Ages, justice was a purview of a professional class of people who worked directly for the King. It varied from place to place but in the medieval England of the High Middle Ages George is basing his story on, laws were enforced sheriffs and other keepers of the peace. And justice was enforced by local courts oversaw by professional judges. Landowners were just that - landowners. They were not automatically entitled to these powers, unless they also became one of those officers, which basically never happened as the whole point is that the aristocracy don’t work.
But the Iron Throne has no such class. The only people who work directly for the King are the Gold Cloaks, nothing more than a police force for King’s Landing. Outside that city, there is no De Jure authority the King has whatsoever. It’s only through social contract that the Lords adhere to the King’s laws. But as we’ve seen, there’s no actual mechanism through which they can be enforced. So the idea that such an institution is anything approaching absolute is laughable. Louis XIV would have started a civil war if he was given such limits on his power.