Most second powerful house in each kingdom

[TheSovereignGrave]

 

I am arguing (in the academic sense) that the legal-political landscape of the country that Aegon I ruled after the Conquest and that continued (with development) for the next 300 years to the time of the novels is in many ways not best understood as unitary, but is more accurately characterized by multi-state suzerainty. This means that one powerful state (in effect the Crownlands) exercises authority over and controls the foreign policy of a weaker state (in effect the other eight regions of Westeros). I am trying to lay out a conceptual framework that most fruitfully conveys this idea.

 

If I can try to boil it down: 'the Realm' is a geopolitical term denoting all of Westeros south of the Wall, the 'Seven Kingdoms' is a historical-cultural title actually denoting nine legally and conceptually distinct entities (which are, of course, united culturally, geographically, economically, linguistically, religiously and demographically). At Aegon's invasion, there were seven kingdoms, sovereign and separate, but because he and his sisters created the Crownlands and divided the Kingdom of Islands and Rivers into the Iron Isthere and the Riverlands nine states actually resulted. Each state's legal essence is distinct, and since Aegon (at least until the Dance of the Dragons) the king who sits the Iron Throne is the king of these states, as distinct legal entities. The Great House of each state is the ancestral house of whichever lord Aegon invested with royal authority at the time of the Conquest. When Aegon conquered the North, the last Stark king knelt and transferred royal authority which was then held in the Iron Throne. When a new king is crowned and sits the IT, he is the new King in the North because its distinct legal 'self' was transferred there when Aegon first assumed that title.

 

Put another way: the Seven Kingdoms (the eight regions of Westeros minus the Crownlands) do not derive legitimacy from the Iron Throne, rather the Iron Throne is imbued with royal authority because of the transfer of the distinct, sovereign royal mandates taken or assumed by Aegon during the War of Conquest.

 

Answer this question for me, if you don't mind:

•In your opinion, when the northern lords bent the knee and proclaimed Robb Stark their new king, were they creating an entirely new kingship and conferring it upon Robb? Or did the office of King in the North *exist since antiquity* and the lords of the North decoupled it from the Iron Throne (dethroning Joffrey) and 'enthroning' Robb?

 

Thanks!

They're not legally distinct, though. The same laws essentially rule the entirety of the realm, Jaehaerys I saw to that with a unified code of law for all the Seven Kingdoms. Granted, Dorne received some special conditions but there's no indication that Dorne has their own distinct laws separate from the Seven Kingdoms. The kingdoms as separate entities were destroyed by Aegon the Conqueror (with the exception of Dorne) and replaced with the authority derived from the Iron Throne. When they were defeated they didn't transfer any sort of legal self, the legal self was destroyed and replaced with the Iron Throne.

And in my personal opinion, when the Northern Lords crowned Robb as King in the North they did neither of what you suggest. They revived a kingship that had been destroyed and laid empty for 3 centuries after Torrhen Stark kneeled to Aegon the Conqueror. Of course, it was larger than Torrhen's kingdom and their war was for independence; in short, it was to get the Iron Throne to at least marginally accept that the regions of the North and the Riverlands were no longer legally part of the Iron Throne, but of the Kingdom in the North.

[Lord Varys]

Dorne has different laws, and those laws shall always prevail in Dorne as stipulated by the treaty between Daeron II and Prince Maron Martell.

Robb created a new kingdom entirely since he wasn't just proclaimed King in the North but King of the Trident as well (which people often seem to forget), and those to regions were never part of the same legal entity prior to the Conquest.

Gyldayn's story of the Conquest shows us how Aegon destroyed all the other kingdoms and their kings and remade their lords. All of the surviving kings humbled themselves in front of the Conqueror, gave up everything they had, and Aegon, being a gracious and forgiving king, draw them back to their feet and restored them to their old seats and lands. But not as kings, as mere lords, and certainly not with the same amount of sovereign power they enjoyed in the days before the Conquest. During the short time those men knelt in front of Aegon they were nothing, though.

If the Iron Throne were ruling over seven kingdoms under one crown then the Kings on the Iron Throne would style themselves 'the King in the North, the King of the Vale, the King of the Rock, etc.' rather than the way they do. It would be similar to the amassed titles crowns the Hapsburgs acquired over the centuries. But this clearly isn't the case.

Perhaps the Targaryens would even have worn seven crowns if that was the case, or a monstrous crown made out of the seven crowns of the seven kings? But they do not.

[asimetrikal]

And in my personal opinion, when the Northern Lords crowned Robb as King in the North they did neither of what you suggest. They revived a kingship that had been destroyed and laid empty for 3 centuries after Torrhen Stark kneeled to Aegon the Conqueror. Of course, it was larger than Torrhen's kingdom and their war was for independence; in short, it was to get the Iron Throne to at least marginally accept that the regions of the North and the Riverlands were no longer legally part of the Iron Throne, but of the Kingdom in the North.

Hey Sovereign,

First I may not be using the right word, but I think I am. I'm not talking about the law as the laws are mostly the same and enforced equally throughout. I mean 'legal essences' as sources of royal legitimacy. If the Iron Throne is the source of legitimate authority for all the regions of Westeros, even those outside the Crownlands, would a historian of political theory say *its* legality could be traced to the High Septon crowning Aegon? If so, this is sticky legal grounds for the North and the Iron Islands where the Faith is not very strong. If it was based on the power of the dragons, its tricky for the whole continent when there are no more dragons.

Second, while I appreciate the semantic leger-de-main required to come up with a third option while answering my question, I feel your response has a 'having your cake and eating it, too' kind of vibe. How, pray tell, does one *revive* an instance of legal authority? Especially when, as you've said, it was 'destroyed' and completely 'replaced' 300 years ago.

Now they may have modelled this new legal kingship entity on the forms and ideas of the one destroyed 300 years ago, but it would be a conceptually new office of the king. It would not, conceptually, be the one Aegon did away with so long ago. And this might be just me brother, I find the idea of a legally recognized abstract conceptual authority being destroyed (especially after 300 years) and later being *revived* as the °same conceptual essence° somewhat untenable. Kind of a too scared to charge, too tired to retreat situation.

But as always, thanks for the input

[The Three Whores]

 

Hey Sovereign,

 

First I may not be using the right word, but I think I am. I'm not talking about the law as the laws are mostly the same and enforced equally throughout. I mean 'legal essences' as sources of royal legitimacy. If the Iron Throne is the source of legitimate authority for all the regions of Westeros, even those outside the Crownlands, would a historian of political theory say *its* legality could be traced to the High Septon crowning Aegon? If so, this is sticky legal grounds for the North and the Iron Islands where the Faith is not very strong. If it was based on the power of the dragons, its tricky for the whole continent when there are no more dragons.

Legality matters very little. I believe Robert Baratheon explained the authority of the Iron Throne best.  "Do you think it's honor that's keeping the peace? It's fear! Fear and blood!"

 

Second, while I appreciate the semantic leger-de-main required to come up with a third option while answering my question, I feel your response has a 'having your cake and eating it, too' kind of vibe. How, pray tell, does one *revive* an instance of legal authority? Especially when, as you've said, it was 'destroyed' and completely 'replaced' 300 years ago.

 

I'm not sure why your questioning this. If Putin lost his rockers and decided to declare the Soviet Union back into existence, would that not count as a "destroyed" and "replaced" instance of legal authority being "revived"? Or maybe the USA enters into a civil war for some reason and the South decides to take the name of the "Confederacy". Would that not count as a "destroyed" and "replaced" instance of legal authority being "revived"? Just cause it may exist nowhere except history doesn't mean it can't be born again.

 

Now they may have modelled this new legal kingship entity on the forms and ideas of the one destroyed 300 years ago, but it would be a conceptually new office of the king. It would not, conceptually, be the one Aegon did away with so long ago. And this might be just me brother, I find the idea of a legally recognized abstract conceptual authority being destroyed (especially after 300 years) and later being *revived* as the °same conceptual essence° somewhat untenable. Kind of a too scared to charge, too tired to retreat situation.

 

Well yes, that's exactly right and I wish I read this part before answering the other two questions lol. Did someone say it was exactly the same as the original office? Obviously it's going to have some differences. But either way, while Robb used the title King of the North his kingdom was completely different than the original. Biggest part because of what Sovereign and I think someone else said which is that Robb's kingdom included the North and the Riverlands. Robb was the King of the North and the Trident.

[TheSovereignGrave]

 

Hey Sovereign,

 

First I may not be using the right word, but I think I am. I'm not talking about the law as the laws are mostly the same and enforced equally throughout. I mean 'legal essences' as sources of royal legitimacy. If the Iron Throne is the source of legitimate authority for all the regions of Westeros, even those outside the Crownlands, would a historian of political theory say *its* legality could be traced to the High Septon crowning Aegon? If so, this is sticky legal grounds for the North and the Iron Islands where the Faith is not very strong. If it was based on the power of the dragons, its tricky for the whole continent when there are no more dragons.

 

Second, while I appreciate the semantic leger-de-main required to come up with a third option while answering my question, I feel your response has a 'having your cake and eating it, too' kind of vibe. How, pray tell, does one *revive* an instance of legal authority? Especially when, as you've said, it was 'destroyed' and completely 'replaced' 300 years ago.

 

Now they may have modelled this new legal kingship entity on the forms and ideas of the one destroyed 300 years ago, but it would be a conceptually new office of the king. It would not, conceptually, be the one Aegon did away with so long ago. And this might be just me brother, I find the idea of a legally recognized abstract conceptual authority being destroyed (especially after 300 years) and later being *revived* as the °same conceptual essence° somewhat untenable. Kind of a too scared to charge, too tired to retreat situation.

 

But as always, thanks for the input

The royal legitimacy originates with Aegon and his dragons conquering the Seven Kingdoms 3 centuries ago and uniting them into a single political entity. The crowning and the like were mere formalities. And it continued on after the death of the dragons because the dragons only served as the origin, but the separate entity continued on beyond that. I mean, does that make sense? I'm not the best at explaining my thoughts sometimes.

I mean, I suppose that it's technically a different entity. But it essentially derives nearly everything from the Kings in the North of old. Same title, same ruling dynasty, etc. The only difference is that it contains the Riverlands, but the he was crowned King in the North and not King in the North and of the Rivers, or something along those lines. So the River Lords were swearing fealty to the King in the North and not their own King. Though perhaps that would've changed had Robb won the war, but we'll never know. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Robb's kingdom was envisioned as essentially the successor to the old Kingdom in the North.

[asimetrikal]

The Three Whores and TheSovereignGrave,

Allow me a few moments and follow along on a thought experiment with me:

The three of us are in a room. We decide to create a monarchy amongst the three of us. TheSovereignGrave, you're selected as king, you know cause of your name. The Three Whores you're next in line, and my peon ass is back of the queue. We agree that this monarchy governs the whole room, but in the future it may expand into the hallway outside, or we may have to contract and accept only a portion of the room later on. We call it Ex-Room. Now Sovereign, you're the king not because your mortal flesh is somehow special, but because you've assumed the abstract, but still discrete (and distinct) *essence* of the kingship. So we go out into the hallway and find another dude, he wants to join Ex-Room. We incorporate him and his hallway. Now, the people in our monarchy have changed, the territory, but the abstract essence of authority vested in TheSovereignGrave is still whole and recognized, so it is the same kingship.

A minute later, we all decide to dissolve our union and become four independent actors again. In that instant the room and hallway remain but are no longer territory of Ex-Room, and we still exist but are no longer sovereign and subjects, because the abstract instance of right to rule, which is by its nature singular, ceases to exist when we agree to dissolve the union.

A minute after this, we three originals go back to the first room. Here we agree to form a monarchy with the forms and particulars of Ex-Room, and we even agree to call it Ex-Room. So we have an exact duplicate of the originally agreed upon union, but, nevertheless, it is *not* the same union we first formed. Nor is Sovereign the holder of the same essence of kingship, its distinct abstract entity, as he was the first time. This new right to rule is exactly like the previous one, but the previous one no longer exists, having dissipated into nothingness, and so the new right to rule is a distinct conceptual entity.

What matters isn't territory or population or even ritual, but the uninterrupted, recognized carrying through time of the right to rule that the population has agreed on.

Thanks for bearing with me there, guys. The point I'm making is that if the Seven Kingdoms lost their sources of sovereignty during the War of Conquest, then when the Northmen chose Robb Stark as the King in the North, they may have been reviving a tradition and a territory exactly like the kingdom of old, or not, but even if they were the abstract essence of the right to rule ("kingship") that Robb assumed would NOT be the same that the Stark kings of old would have had. It would have been an entirely new instance of right to rule.

In my proposed framework, on the other hand, Aegon - and his successors - would rule righteously not because a new abstract source of royal legitimacy had been forged over the whole of Westeros, but because he created a kingdom of his own (the Crownlands) owing its legitimacy to the right of conquest, and became the king of seven *distinct nations* when he assumed their previous kings' positions or accepted their surrendur. In this way the Kings in the North never stopped, they just became Targaryans for a time and then Baratheons, before the recognized legitimacy (among the northern lords) was shifted back to the Stark line.

The Three Whores: what does legality matter? Nothing at all, I don't think. This is all an exercise into the political theory of ASoIaF, I don't mean to make judgments one way or the other.

Finally, I'm not saying y'all are wrong, I actually moreso believe that you are right, that the ancient rights to rule were completely destroyed when Aegon rode through. Its just I have a tendency to whittle at thoughts like this as a hobby.

[The Three Whores]

The only part I disagree with that is where you say he created a kingdom of his own (the Crownlands). While yes he did create a kingdom of his own, the kingdom he created encompassed everything south of the wall, even though he couldn't enforce that claim in Dorne. There were no Kings in the North after Aegon's Conquest (cept ol Robb), just the King of the Seven Kingdoms.

It's like the President of the United States. He's the president over all the states combined, but you wouldn't call him say the President of Virginia, or the President of Texas.

[purple-eyes]

The only part I disagree with that is where you say he created a kingdom of his own (the Crownlands). While yes he did create a kingdom of his own, the kingdom he created encompassed everything south of the wall, even though he couldn't enforce that claim in Dorne. There were no Kings in the North after Aegon's Conquest (cept ol Robb), just the King of the Seven Kingdoms.

It's like the President of the United States. He's the president over all the states combined, but you wouldn't call him say the President of Virginia, or the President of Texas.

Crownland is a kingdom?

I always thought it is just a metropolitan area for Kings landing. 

We should call it greater King's landing area.  

 

[asimetrikal]

It's like the President of the United States. He's the president over all the states combined, but you wouldn't call him say the President of Virginia, or the President of Texas.

Except that Texas didn't exist as a sovereign entity before the States. The Virginia case is a good example though, I think.

Under the 'by right of conquest' model of political power (what you and Sovereign have explicated so well) the new single political *potentas* ended all those Kingdoms and dynasties stretching back hundreds or thousands of years to the Dawn Age. Even the ancient and venerable line of Winter Kings is broken. That's just the smallest bit sad to me.

[The Three Whores]

Crownland is a kingdom?

I always thought it is just a metropolitan area for Kings landing. 

We should call it greater King's landing area.  

 

I was trying to say that the Crownlands isn't a kingdom. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.

[Endymion I Targaryen]

North: Boltons

Riverlands: Freys

Vale: Royces

Westlands: Marbrands

Iron Islands: Harlaws

Reach: Hightowers

Stormlands: Swanns

Dorne: Yronwoods

 

[1000th Lord Commander]

Jamie names the potential usurpers when he hears about the Red Wedding, rather than second most powerful, but he's probably close to the money.

North Boltons,

Vale Royces

Riverlands Freys

Westlands Serrets or Leffords, discounting the Lannisters of Lanisport

Iron Islands Harlaws

Reach Hightowers

Stormlands Tarth, or whoever controls Weeping Tower

Dorne Yronwoods

 

[asimetrikal]

Dorne has different laws, and those laws shall always prevail in Dorne as stipulated by the treaty between Daeron II and Prince Maron Martell.

Robb created a new kingdom entirely since he wasn't just proclaimed King in the North but King of the Trident as well (which people often seem to forget), and those to regions were never part of the same legal entity prior to the Conquest.

Gyldayn's story of the Conquest shows us how Aegon destroyed all the other kingdoms and their kings and remade their lords. All of the surviving kings humbled themselves in front of the Conqueror, gave up everything they had, and Aegon, being a gracious and forgiving king, draw them back to their feet and restored them to their old seats and lands. But not as kings, as mere lords, and certainly not with the same amount of sovereign power they enjoyed in the days before the Conquest. During the short time those men knelt in front of Aegon they were nothing, though.

If the Iron Throne were ruling over seven kingdoms under one crown then the Kings on the Iron Throne would style themselves 'the King in the North, the King of the Vale, the King of the Rock, etc.' rather than the way they do. It would be similar to the amassed titles crowns the Hapsburgs acquired over the centuries. But this clearly isn't the case.

Perhaps the Targaryens would even have worn seven crowns if that was the case, or a monstrous crown made out of the seven crowns of the seven kings? But they do not.

Lord Varys,

In response to your (well-made) point regarding distinct Westerosi royal titles for kings sitting the Iron Throne, one might argue that 'Lord of the Seven Kingdoms' is °comprehensive° of the list of distinct names, what we might call a °courtly dispensation°. Note I do not necessarily take this view.

In fact, the king's titles provide an interesting study into the image and perception of royal authority in Westeros. 'His Grace, [X] of the House [Y], [Nth] of his name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar, and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm.'

First off we see a highly racialized idea of kingship. Aegon didn't list any of his geographic or functional credentials first, but rather applied the royal mandate to the blood of the lands he'd just taken.

We also see he was a big fucking liar. He never took Dorne, but be began styling himself '[King of] the Rhoynar' as soon as he was crowned in Old Town.

Second, he is Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, rather than listing all 8-9 distinct titles serially, which would bore you to death.

Third, Protector of the singular Realm. These last two bits I talked about in an earlier post so no need to revisit them.

And finally, Lord Varys, we would agree on one of your final points even under my conception: when the defeated kings knelt before Aegon they transferred their royal authority to him, and of course only their own because the King in the Stormlands cannot speak for the Kings of the Rock. In the brief moment after they stood from their kneeling but before Aegon appointed them his vassals, and he their suzerain, they were nothing. But the unbroken line of kingship still carried on invested in Aegon's crown and it now rests loosely on sweet Tommen's head.

Well except the Iron Islands, who have taken theirs back, and the North for a while before the loyal sons of northern stability, the Boltons, helped remedy that wrong.