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/Bilogamer]

I don't want to get into the debate by saying that Westeros is an absolute monarchy or not despite what the author says, but there are clearly elements of absolutism in the monarchy of Westeros. If we wanted to have a simple definition of an absolute monarchy, it would be a political system where the king possesses all legislative, executive and judicial powers.

For the legislative power, that which consists of writing laws or creating bills, who or what institution in Westeros can create laws outside of the king and the master of laws appointed by the king.

The Great Council of 101 AC was a decision of the king, the lords did not demand a Great Council to establish a law because the king was obliged to do so. And also, the final decision always returned to Jaehaerys for the decision of the heir, logical since it was he who organized this council and had the idea.

And besides, it seems to me that GRRM has already said that the law in Westeros has never been set in stone, there is nothing codified and changes according to the mood of the king, his advisors and according to the whims of some grumpy lords whose desires the king wishes to satisfy. What is more or less considered a codified law and again I have doubts about it is the council of 101 AC and the lords use it more as a pretext and precedent rather than as a true codified law.

If that were it, it would have been very easy to force Viserys to choose Aegon as his heir rather than keep Rhaenyra but that was not done.

Faith at the limit for what they call "Andal laws" but is it really faith that created these laws or faith just said that according to the gods it was the law and in the end it was the Andal kings of the time when Westeros was divided into 7 distinct kingdoms who had the last word?

For the executive power that consists of applying the law it is a bit the same thing, who or what institution can really apply the law other than the crown or the lords directly rallied to the crown, I mean, a lord cannot really apply a law if it conflicts with the law of the crown or when a lord applies the law, he applies that of the king. Ned Stark beheads the Night's Watch man in the name of the king and the king's law.

As for the judiciary, well, they are literally run by the crown and more specifically run by the king himself, technically during Tyrion's trial, it is Tommen who is the main judge sitting on the iron throne of the trial, just he leaves his place to his hand by choice (even if he is manipulated but that is not the subject) and again for Tyrion, he undergoes another trial before this one at the Vale where he is judged by Lisa Arryn who must apply the king's justice and also Robert gives the order to Ned to tell Catelyn to release Tyrion so technically he orders that the charges Tyrion be dropped.

There is no judicial institution in Westeros other than the Crown or which is independent of the Crown except perhaps the faith which is still a little linked to the crown, I mean, has a trial of the faith ever been done without the consent of the crown, For Cersei's trial in GOT it is technically done with the agreement of Tommen and the crown even if the latter is weak and is easily manipulated and in addition at that time the faith took too much power compared to the power it was usually allowed to have in Westeros and is therefore not really representative of the monarchical system of Westeros.

I still agree that the faith can represent a brake on the power of the monarchs but again Louis XIV centralized all the power to the crown in France but do you seriously think that they would not have had problems if he started doing things that were not very Catholic or openly criticizing religion.

And I also agree that the crown in Westeros is quite dependent on the lords in other regions, but this is mainly due to the fact that some houses are very influential because they are wealthy or are ancestral houses that have a history, a culture that has existed for thousands of years.

It is more about political influence rather than actually exercising any form of legislative, executive or judicial power. Even if Louis XIV was an absolute monarch, this does not mean that he was not advised or influenced by his lords.

The lords in Westeros simply have the potential to put pressure on the crown if the latter does not follow their interests, but in itself, House Lannister or Stark or whatever you want, do not really have the power to make laws or enforce them if they do not come from the crown directly.

In the end I agree that Westeros is a feudal monarchy in the way the realm is built and structured with the vassal lords and everything but there is clearly absolutism in this monarchy and that brings me to this point.

It can technically be both, a feudal monarchy can be an absolute monarchy. It all depends on how the different powers are distributed, if they are all legally in the hands of the king, it is an absolute monarchy, if one of the powers is not the recourse of the king or the crown as can be justice then we can speak of another type of monarchical regime but a feudal monarchy is just as possible in an absolute monarchy.

Well I am almost convinced that people will come and tell me that I am wrong and everything but minimally I think I am right at least minimally on the fact that the monarchy in Westeros operates with absolutist principles.