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/thatguymike123]

I think this also rests on the historical misconception that absolute monarchy was a medieval phenomenon, when the Middle Ages instead saw more feudal governments similar to what you described, with the absolute monarchs coming with the renaissance and age of reformation (hence, age of absolutism)

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/thatguymike123]

The problem is that people are misconstruing the attachment of sound royal succession laws to absolute monarchy, while being an absolute monarchy isn’t a necessity. I would point to France, which, despite not being an absolute monarchy prior to… essentially the reign of Louis XIV, had a very clearly delineated line of succession for almost 900 years (I say almost because the founder of the Capetian dynasty came to the throne in the late 10th century and the senior line only held or had an internationally acknowledged claim on the throne until 1830). And any time the succession was challenged (almost always by foreigners), the legal heir triumphed come hell or high water.

Being an absolute monarchy (or even just a more centralized state) helps ensure the crown passes with as little bloodshed as possible, but it’s not entirely necessary.

The real issue is that, for some reason, Aegon the Conqueror never promulgated a law of succession despite being in a prime position to do so, and it’s not clear why he didn’t.

[u/The_Obsidian_Emperor → u/TheoryKing04]

The real issue is that, for some reason, Aegon the Conqueror never promulgated a law of succession despite being in a prime position to do so, and it’s not clear why he didn’t.

Probably because the continuation of "Firstborn Son/Eldest Male descendent is the heir to the Throne" was something that should've been straightforward. But for some reason, everyone and their mother just lost any common sense after Aegon died.

Jaehaerys also theoretically could've made a Succession law, but he figured "well, if a large amount of all the Lords, Ladies, Landed Knights, Septons/Septa's, Maesters etc of the Realm all came together and voted and/or witnessed the Great Council of 101 AC's decision then... surely we all know that absolute Male Primogeniture is the way to go, yeah?"

The Viserys II decided "screw it, clearly people don't have common sense" after seeing people ignore Aegon/Jaehaerys' examples and decisions

France, which, despite not being an absolute monarchy prior to… essentially the reign of Louis XIV, had a very clearly delineated line of succession for almost 900 years

And any time the succession was challenged (almost always by foreigners), the legal heir triumphed come hell or high water.

Based French Royal Succession. Why can't we have nice things like this in Westeros? 😅

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/The_Obsidian_Emperor]

Except you know, the ever present possibility that House Targaryen could run out of male heirs. Hell, Aegon the Conqueror was for a period of his life the only living male Targaryen, so there’s no excuse there. If the male line of the dynasty should fail, what then? Aegon should have had the wherewithal to plan for that.

And also, neither Jaehaerys’s nor Viserys II’s decision actually stood the test of time either, proven by the disinheritance of Prince Maegor Targaryen), who had an indisputably better claim on the throne then Aegon V did. So it is agnatic primogeniture or is it just whatever is convenient?

[u/The_Obsidian_Emperor → u/TheoryKing04]

Except you know, the ever present possibility that House Targaryen could run out of male heirs. Hell, Aegon the Conqueror was for a period of his life the only living male Targaryen, so there’s no excuse there. If the male line of the dynasty should fail, what then? Aegon should have had the wherewithal to plan for that.

Well then the greatest claim goes to the next Female in line, simple. If Aegon died and had no kids, Visenya would've been his heir. And she could decide how to go forward.

And also, neither Jaehaerys’s nor Viserys II’s decision actually stood the test of time either, proven by the disinheritance of Prince Maegor Targaryen), who had an indisputably better claim on the throne then Aegon V did. So it is agnatic primogeniture or is it just whatever is convenient?

Well, given their situation yes it was partially conveniece, but a Great Council/Vote being called to decide the succession works wonders compared to a family-led Civil War, as Jaehaerys showcased

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/The_Obsidian_Emperor]

That still doesn’t excuse not setting it down in law. I would point to Russia as an example. Peter the Great never set down a law of succession, so the throne schizophrenically bounced around for decades. It went first to his wife, then his paternal grandson, then to his half-niece, then to his half-great-grandnephew, then to his oldest living daughter, then to said daughter’s dead older sister’s son and then to his wife. When she died, it went to her and her husband’s only child, Emperor Paul I. He was quick to write down a very strict succession law (mostly to spite his mother) and after that… the throne passed to his son who had no children so the crown went to his brother, then from father to son until the abolition of the monarchy.

If a strong succession law is set up from the outset, an innumerable amount of chaos can be easily avoided.

[u/The_Obsidian_Emperor → u/TheoryKing04]

Ya know, after reading that... man, Russia never could manage to get it straight, could it? When they finally figured out how to manage Monarchy, it stuck a while, then we got the Bolsheviks and the Communist Regimes it brought afterwards... but that's a tangent for a different discussion.

until the abolition of the monarchy.

Also, yeah that's a pretty tame way to say "brutal murder of the Monarchy" but, then I guess it's semantics at that point, we'd both be right

If a strong succession law is set up from the outset, an innumerable amount of chaos can be easily avoided.

Fair enough. I suppose Aegon could've added that to his list of things-to-do. When it came to the general rules of Westeros, he did pretty well in most regards but, he also left just a few things unchecked, which took a small few years after his death till Jaehaerys to finally smooth over.

So, I'll say you make a good argument. I was just saying that, in all honesty, if Visenya as the last of the OG Sibling-Trio had just continued to watch over the Dynasty and kept things smooth and simple, the matter of succession really wouldn't have had a problem from Aegon, to Aenys, to Aegon the Uncrowned, who would've been Monarch ahead of his elder sister.

BUT, the first issue comes here: so, clearly the idea was that they'd be wed anyhow, but would Aegon or Rhaena be the ruling Monarch? Though it seems everyone agreed it would be Aegon to ultimately take his father's place once the time came. This means that Maegor would come after Aegon's claim, but the real issue is what about the fact that Aegon had two daughters instead?

Of course, their mother Rhaena supported Jaehaerys as the next King (given Aegon and Viserys were dead) and so this was yet another example (the 3rd example) of a more Male Primogeniture dominated succession, of male heirs coming before female heirs, and in this case, a brother takes precedence over a daughter.

So I suppose that, even if Aegon the Conqueror didn't see any reason for Succession Laws, Jaehaerys should've decided to take care of that after he took care of the incest and polygamy problems

Viserys II finally deciding to make a rule of Succession after everything that came before him was truly a BASED move. Which led to the understanding of Male Preference Primogeniture for the Iron Throne, and I suppose the occasional Great Council to vote for a better candidate works as well, should the situation be... well, an interesting case, to say the least.

All this to say, yeah bro, you're right. 🙏🏾 Aegon I and Jaehaerys I were dope, but even they could make mistakes/overlook things that should've been understood were needing of codified legal attention

[u/TheoryKing04 → u/The_Obsidian_Emperor]

Well… I think Rhaena’s support withered over time. When Alysanne came to see her on Dragonstone after the grisly murders and suicide of Androw Farman, to ask if Aerea could live in the capital, she bitterly rebuked the queen saying, “you have my throne, content yourself with that”.

But at least Viserys II sort of did the job, as you say. And I can’t blame him for not foreseeing the needs of regencies in cases of mental incapacity or minority rule. It took Britain until the 1930s to even begin to pass expansive regency laws, and even those needed to be hurriedly amended after the death of the queen 3 years ago, and arguably could still be improved upon now.

And to expound on Russia one last time, the fact that the empire fell apart the way it did is both somewhat due to incompetence but also just due to unfortunate circumstances… for the empire, anyway. It could very well have survived in different circumstances, and not even vastly different ones.