What are the powers of the King on The Iron Throne?

[ASwordAhai]

 

On 4/30/2016 at 4:08 AM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

This sounds nothing like Westeros.

Did you miss the fragments, where local overlords were able to, as they say, "call their banners" (their banners? they have no business having "their" banners in an absolutist state?!), raise an army and use it even again the king himself? Arryn, Stark, Baratheon. Those were kind of relevant plot points...

Are you implying that lords have a *legal right* to raise an army against the King if they so choose? Certainly not. 

The King in Westeros' power seems to be in theory absolute. If he wants to attaint your entire house, he can. If he wants to cut your tongue out because he doesn't like what you say, he can. If he wants a fuck your wife, he can. How do you plan to stop him? 

The reality of that situation then comes down to whether or not you actually can stop him. And in that way the King's power in practice is limited by the obedience of his vassals. 

So yes, in practice not all of the power rests with the King, because his vassals can choose to disobey him and without his vassals he has very little power. 

But, if that's the territory we're entering, then talk of laws and legality is pointless, you are already going outside of the law and rebelling against the king. Legally, the King's power is absolute; in practice, the King's power is derived almost entirely from his vassals and is dependent upon them. 

All these posts and I have set to see one person provide a single legal limitation on the King's power. There are no legal limitations, only practical ones. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

35 minutes ago, ASwordAhai said:

 

Are you implying that lords have a *legal right* to raise an army against the King if they so choose? Certainly not. 

Certainly they do. It's called "feudal contract".

Jon Arryn did.

Robb Stark did. And when he did, no lord in the North even dared to suggest there was anything illegal about it.

Of course the king might whine about it being unlawful, illegal, unfair and simply mean - the thing is, kings tend to have a royal-centric point of view.

35 minutes ago, ASwordAhai said:

The King in Westeros' power seems to be in theory absolute.

In whose theory? The king's, or the nobles'?

The thing is - "feudal monarchy" and "absolute monarchy" are two quite different forms of government. In Westeros, we have the former, with the balance of power relying on the contracts between the sovereign and the vassal (which, while varying, seldom state: "you can do to me whatever the fuck you want, and I'll always swallow and smile"). Contracts that bound both sides.

Just the lack of a written constitution does not an absolute monarchy make. Don't think Medieval kings of England and France (on which the ASOIAF is based), think much, much later: Louis XIV Bourbon. That's absolute monarchy. But to be able to say "L'état, c'est moi", he first needed to break the nobility's backs. In the Seven Kingdoms, the nobility is still powerful, more than the Iron Throne in fact.

Let's look at the War of the Five Kings, for example: there's no "royal" army to speak of, beside some two-odd thousand of Gold Cloaks - Lord Tywin's host answer to Lord Tywin, not to the Crown; even the sellswords who defended King's Landing were in fact private Lannister troops, hired by Tyrion Lannister and paid with Lannister gold.

35 minutes ago, ASwordAhai said:

If he wants to attaint your entire house, he can. If he wants to cut your tongue out because he doesn't like what you say, he can. If he wants a fuck your wife, he can. How do you plan to stop him?

Now I'm confused, whether are you arguing the legal status quo ("in theory..."), or the balance of actual power ("how do you plan to stop him?").

[Morgana Lannister]

Okay, first of all, there is a very real difference between what the law may be and what the practice of that is, but I guess all posters here agree with that and I am just merely stating the obvious lol.

I have now read the whole post and there are lots of interesting facts and views, but my first reaction to it was what Varys said "power resides where people believes it resides" (not exact quote, but you get what I mean).

Granted.  This principle applies to I guess any form of government, even a democracy.... but certainly both to absolute monarchs and feudal monarchs.

I am no historian (although I was once married to one and I learnt a few bits ) but my degree is English Law and lol.  Okay, in today's day, our Queen "theoretically" has, by the royal prerogative, the right to dissolve Parliament!!!   Yes, it is archaic and it hasn't been challenged because there is no way in hell she would just get out of the wrong side of the bed and do this!  Okay, this brings us back to law -v- real situation.  Fair enough.

Now, as for the law, as Bright Blue Eye has exemplified, yes there is a feudal system in place, with mutual contracts.  I take it that hey if I am a crofter I cannot very hardly deny Lord this or that a percentage of my crofts by way of tax, say (not that dissimilar to our income tax to be honest) but the Lord swears to me that they would protect me against invaders or something, that I can go into the castle where we are under siege (just like my taxes pay for the military in today's days).  Not saying that the system wasn't unfair and brutal, hey, but there were mutual obligations.

Of course the king (Joffrey, say) could decide to chop a Lord's head at will almost (Ned's, say) but note that he wasn't "legally" abusing his powers since Ned had sadly confessed.  Now, it would be interesting to consider what the reaction to the beheading would have been at large had Ned not confessed.  I am not talking here about the Lords of the other 6 kingdoms necessarily given a shit about Ned's life but more in terms of hey, if that can happen to one, it can happen to us all...  Of course the king is the highest echelon of the feudal pyramid.  In Europe it was the Pope but Westeros seem to have a sort of regional freedom of creed.  Here is the monarch, yes, the monarch is mighty powerful and at the top of the food chain.  

He/she may get away with anything, or make anything the law, but ultimately he/she may get opposed and lose by way of conquest yet again and hey, new set of people and rules.

I agree with Lord Varys, but I am not an expert on Targs prior the books, on the almost divine element of the monarch there.  I agree with him too that that lessen after the dragons were gone but not immediately.  Oftentimes things take time, just like the fall of the Roman Empire didn't happen one morrow and the next evening the Middle Ages began lol

Now, I know we can feel enraged because our loved characters live in this unfair fantasy world, even though we only have a few peasant born to root for.  Now, George shows us mainly Lords and Kings, who we root for or against.  Ned's first chapter to me proves that there is strong written law, as do the rules of NW or the King Guard, fair or unfair to us... but there are strong Lords.

Now the Small Council.  We see from LF that this can be a meritocracy.  Also the Citadel provides the Grand Maester (surely the Citadel or whatever can be corrupt in their choice or ill advised lol) but the King has a Council.  Granted, absolute monarchs usually have one too.  But the people in this Council are powerful for or against the King.  Tywin Lannister is the richest Lord and the Crown owes him tons.  LF has only a minor title but a huge manipulative brain, as does Varys.  Tyrion replaces his father for a time lol.  These people should scare any king like Joffrey, had he had more sense lol

The likes of Joffrey and Viserys believe that they can do as they may and look how they turned out!  Okay, not deposed by a Council vote but in practicality, granted.  But in short there were laws that seem very feudal to me, just so that as in feudalism the King is the overall Lord, but there were laws!  Repeal them at your own peril as King.  If you have the support or noone feels strongly enough for or against, they will pass if not it may well be the execution block awaiting...

[867-5309]

On 4/29/2016 at 1:18 AM, TimJames said:

As ruler of The Iron Throne, the King of Westeros has immense power. However, his power is not absolute as he must still contend with his vassals.

What powers does The King of Westeros have. What would he be allowed to do without provoking an uprising?

 

The monarch controls the lands in classic feudalism.  Lords and fighting people who have given valuable service are given land by the king.  Land is power because it is the source of income and only those so granted by the monarch can own land.  The lords give oaths of loyalty and service to the monarch in exchange for continued right to hold and draw income from the lands. 

The oaths are important because it is what gives the monarch the power to call people into battle.  Oaths are important and most lords will honor that oath when the monarch calls them into battle.  Oath honoring is more common than oath breaking.  The more honorable the nobles are the stronger the king.  The more honorable the common folk the stronger their lord becomes.  Honorable people in feudalism do what they swore to do.

[Stormking902]

On 29/04/2016 at 8:12 PM, Bright Blue Eyes said:

Ok, back to the basics.

This is absolutism.

This is feudalism.

Absolute legal power is what the King has in absolutism. That's why it is called absolutism. In feudalism, his legal power is limited. Westeros shows a lot of features commonly found only in feudalism, but not in absolutism.

This........ Basically the king must still follow the law but if he doesnt follow the law there has to be a force to make him pay for his actions which there usually isnt, unfortunatly for house Targaryan Aerys pissed off 3 great lords at once which was idiotic.