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

[RoamingRonin]

Quote

In theory, the absolute monarch exercises total power over the land, yet in practice the monarchy is counterbalanced by political groups from among the social classes and castes of the realm, such as the aristocracy, clergy, and middle and lower classes.

... this sounds exactly like Westeros...

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Vassal? Fief?  Oath of fealty? Those are the defining features of feudalism and feature quote prominently in Westeros.

[RoamingRonin]

Ok, and? Please quote something from your sources that contradicts the fact that Westeros is ruled by absolute monarchy.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Quote

In medieval Europe, an oath of fealty (German: Lehnseid) was a fundamental element of the feudal system in the Holy Roman Empire. It was sworn between two people, the obliged person (vassal) and a person of rank (liege lord). The oath of allegiance was usually carried out as part of a traditional ceremony in which the liegeman or vassal gave his lord a pledge of loyalty and acceptance of the consequences of a breach of trust. In return the liege lord promised to protect and remain loyal to his vassal.

Quote

"To Winterfell we pledge the faith of Greywater," they said together. "Hearth and heart and harvest we yield up to you, my lord. Our swords and spears and arrows are yours to command. Grant mercy to our weak, help to our helpless, and justice to all, and we shall never fail you."

"I swear it by earth and water," said the boy in green.

Quote

"You swore an oath to my father," Catelyn reminded him.

He bobbed his head side to side, smiling. "Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me. Joffrey's the king now, and that makes you and your boy and all those fools out there no better than rebels. If I had the sense the gods gave a fish, I'd help the Lannisters boil you all."

Quote

The tall girl knelt awkwardly, unsheathed Renly's longsword, and laid it at her feet. "Then I am yours, my lady. Your liege man, or . . . whatever you would have me be. I will shield your back and keep your counsel and give my life for yours, if need be. I swear it by the old gods and the new."

"And I vow that you shall always have a place by my hearth and meat and mead at my table, and pledge to ask no service of you that might bring you into dishonor. I swear it by the old gods and the new. Arise." As she clasped the other woman's hands between her own, Catelyn could not help but smile. How many times did I watch Ned accept a man's oath of service? She wondered what he would think if he could see her now.

Here you go.

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

Ok, and? Please quote something from your sources that contradicts the fact that Westeros is ruled by absolute monarchy.

Wanna go with the Faith Militant, the Faith, and polygamy amongst Targaryen kings after Aegon? Maegor couldn't just wave his hands at that.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Yes and without more information about his current status, support, and personality, we can't really tell you much

Pretty much.

• Depends on the King
• On his Hand
• And his Small Council
• On his wife
• And possibly his heirs
• And the Lords of the land
• And the health of the land
• And even the relationship between the Kingdom and other nations
• and many other variables.

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

15 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Pretty much.

• Depends on the King
• On his Hand
• And his Small Council
• On his wife
• And possibly his heirs
• And the Lords of the land
• And the health of the land
• And even the relationship between the Kingdom and other nations
• and many other variables.

 

So I have to go back to, does he call his mother every week? She's only in the other tower.

[Humble Maester]

3 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

So I have to go back to, does he call his mother every week? She's only in the other tower.

Let us assume, as a hypothesis, that the king is in a constant communications with his mother. How would this affect the relationship between the Iron Throne and Highgarden (assuming the Lord in Highgarden is also very communicative with his mother)? Also, in this case, would the tax yields from White Harbor increase or decrease, assuming the season is also summer.

These are the important questions for this series.

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 minutes ago, Humble Maester said:

Let us assume, as a hypothesis, that the king is in a constant communications with his mother. How would this affect the relationship between the Iron Throne and Highgarden (assuming the Lord in Highgarden is also very communicative with his mother)? Also, in this case, would the tax yields from White Harbor increase or decrease, assuming the season is also summer.

These are the important questions for this series. If

It really depends on if the King, Lord Tyrell, and Lord Manderly have found nice women to settle down with. Also have they been eating enough? They look too thin. Would you like some lamprey pie?

If the answers are yes, then the yields increase but so might the outlays. You have to keep your wives happy and eat well. Seriously are you three sick? You're too thin. Have some fried bread and bowl of brown

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

9 hours ago, RoamingRonin said:

... this sounds exactly like Westeros...

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...

[Universal Sword Donor]

16 minutes ago, 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...

Look just because Lady Dustin (and likely her brothers and father) didn't give over the proper % of their feudal levy to Robb doesn't mean Westeros doesn't operate with a non-absolutist monarchy. I mean Mors (or Hother?) Umber sassed Ser Rodrik. That's pretty much a death sentence right?

[RoamingRonin]

6 hours ago, 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.

The King is titled Lord of the Seven Kingdoms. Those are his banners.

What Jon Arryn, Ned and Robert did was treason.

Quote

Those were kind of relevant plot points...

This conversation between Stannis and Davos is also relevant:

Quote

"It is every man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false," Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument.

A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. "As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?" he blurted.

 

Shocked silence followed, until Ser Axell cried, "Treason!" and snatched his dagger from its sheath. "Your Grace, he speaks his infamy to your face!"

An extremely relevant plot point.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

41 minutes ago, RoamingRonin said:

The King is titled Lord of the Seven Kingdoms. Those are his banners.

Precisely. Titled. Lord Manderly, for example, still styles himself "Lord Marshal of the Mander" (which is worth precisely nothing). In real world, too, monarchs would boast very impressive list of titles, some of them having little connection with reality. Which was the last king of Great Britain to style himself "King of France"? George III, I think?

And whose those banners were in fact (fact, mind you, not title)? It's very easy to tell, by the way. Whose call they answered? That's it, really. "Facts" trump "what the king think of himself", it's really no contest.

41 minutes ago, RoamingRonin said:

What Jon Arryn, Ned and Robert did was treason.

From Viserys' point of view, yes. From anybody else's, though, it gets a little more complicated than that.

41 minutes ago, RoamingRonin said:

This conversation between Stannis and Davos is also relevant:

Ah, come on. Stannis? Stannis Baratheon? The dude has a completely Stannis-centric view on what's legal and what's not: whatever benefits him, is "the law". Plus, it's just another case of the facts on one hand, and the (self-proclaimed) king's opinion on the other - and again I'm going with the facts against the opinion.

[RoamingRonin]

35 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Precisely. Titled. Lord Manderly, for example, still styles himself "Lord Marshal of the Mander" (which is worth precisely nothing). In real world, too, monarchs would boast very impressive list of titles, some of them having little connection with reality. Which was the last king of Great Britain to style himself "King of France"? George III, I think?

And whose those banners were in fact (fact, mind you, not title)? It's very easy to tell, by the way. Whose call they answered? That's it, really. "Facts" trump "what the king think of himself", it's really no contest.

From Viserys' point of view, yes. From anybody else's, though, it gets a little more complicated than that.

King is a title as well. So is Lord, Magister, High Septon, etc.

Quote

"Your father's lands are beautiful," Prince Rhaegar had said, standing right where Jon was standing now. And the boy he'd been had replied, "One day they will all be mine." As if that could impress a prince who was heir to the entire realm, from the Arbor to the Wall.

The realm belongs to the King. The Lord of Winterfell can't go to Highgarden and make commands and vice-versa. But the King can. That's why Lord of the Seven Kingdoms isn't an empty title.

Quote

Ah, come on. Stannis? Stannis Baratheon? The dude has a completely Stannis-centric view on what's legal and what's not: whatever benefits him, is "the law". Plus, it's just another case of the facts on one hand, and the (self-proclaimed) king's opinion on the other - and again I'm going with the facts against the opinion.

Stannis was being a hypocrite and Davos called him out. The fact is... what Stannis did - supporting Robert over Aerys - was treason. Stannis even agrees with him.

[Richard Writhen]

He gets that kingsright. Pretty neat, look it up ...

 

[Lord Varys]

If we check the early Targaryen kings they most likely had de facto absolute power - especially Jaehaerys I and Viserys I - due to their dragons and the fact that they had crushed all resistance by the time Jaehaerys I took the throne.

And we see that it is the king's right to give and take lands as early as during the story of the Conquest. Aegon's destroys kings and makes lords.

The fact that it seems the political situation was very similar back then doesn't mean a great lord had as much power then as he had later on after the death of the dragons and during the reign of weak Robert I Baratheon.

Jaehaerys I most likely didn't use his absolute power all that often - he wasn't called 'the Conciliator' for no reason, after all. But for all his nice talk Jaehaerys I still rode on the biggest Targaryen dragons. The Starks most likely tried to convince Jaehaerys I by trying to find legal precedents they could use to convince the king to change his plans. But guess what - either he didn't give a damn about those precedents or they couldn't change his mind (not to mention that there might not have been such precedents in the first place).

And Viserys I's legal power is pretty obvious. He could do whatever the hell he wanted and he got everything he wanted. Nobody could restrict him legally.

The idea that the dragon kings had set up their Realm in this feudal society the later kings had to deal with is not very likely. For the dragonriding Targaryens the great lords would have been nothing but royal officials they could make and unmake as they saw fit. Just as Maegor I apparently did. If Jaehaerys I or Viserys I had intended to take a major castle from its lord and give it to another nobleman (or their favorite groom) then this would have happened. People would have grumbled and cursed behind the king's back but it is not very likely that there would have been a major rebellion.

Later on the Targaryens were stuck with the feudal society because they had (apparently) failed to build a real royal bureaucracy. Or perhaps there was such but did not survive the Dance and the Regency. We know way too little about all that.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If we check the early Targaryen kings they most likely had de facto absolute power - especially Jaehaerys I and Viserys I - due to their dragons and the fact that they had crushed all resistance by the time Jaehaerys I took the throne.

And we see that it is the king's right to give and take lands as early as during the story of the Conquest. Aegon's destroys kings and makes lords.

And even Aegon the Conqueror, with all his might, did not fuck with the established feudal structure. He left Lannister as Lord of the Westerlands, Arryn as Lord of the Vale, left Highgarden to the high stewards of the Reach (as there were no more Gardeners), had Orys Baratheon marry the daughter of the last Durrendon king - the only place where he rearranged the contemporary feudal status quo on macroscale was the Riverlands. And that, too, was because that move was supported by the local river lords. Bottom line, Aegon I himself didn't think he was an absolute king, despite Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes.

Sure, he was one tough SOB of a king, but doesn't automatically equals absolutism.

[RoamingRonin]

3 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

And even Aegon the Conqueror, with all his might, did not fuck with the established feudal structure. He left Lannister as Lord of the Westerlands, Arryn as Lord of the Vale, left Highgarden to the high stewards of the Reach (as there were no more Gardeners), had Orys Baratheon marry the daughter of the last Durrendon king - the only place where he rearranged the contemporary feudal status quo on macroscale was the Riverlands. And that, too, was because that move was supported by the local river lords. Bottom line, Aegon I himself didn't think he was an absolute king, despite Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes.

Sure, he was one tough SOB of a king, but doesn't automatically equals absolutism.

Except that he totally did which is why there is now one kingdom instead of seven.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

And even Aegon the Conqueror, with all his might, did not fuck with the established feudal structure. He left Lannister as Lord of the Westerlands, Arryn as Lord of the Vale, left Highgarden to the high stewards of the Reach (as there were no more Gardeners), had Orys Baratheon marry the daughter of the last Durrendon king - the only place where he rearranged the contemporary feudal status quo on macroscale was the Riverlands. And that, too, was because that move was supported by the local river lords. Bottom line, Aegon I himself didn't think he was an absolute king, despite Balerion, Vhagar and Meraxes.

Sure, he was one tough SOB of a king, but doesn't automatically equals absolutism.

The question to ask really is what exactly a monarchy whose dynasty's power is founded on fire-breathing dragons can be compared to?

There is nothing equivalent to this kind of thing in the real world.

What we know from real world are societies in which the kings were divine or semi-divine (Ancient Egypt and Persia, Hellenistic Greece, Ancient China, and so on). We know that the Targaryens were also considered to be closer to gods than to common men. If that's not just idle talk then the kings from Aegon I to Aerys II would have had a very special status - a status Robert, Joffrey, and Tommen lack.

But real world examples tell us that large empires only remain united if there is a strong central power - and Westeros is a large empire. Feudalism would inevitably lead to fragmentation and secession in such empires.

I'd agree that Westeros looks much more like the Holy Roman Empire in the Baratheon days then an absolute monarchy but the king is still treated as if he is the ultimate authority (although he has no means to actual enforce his will against his lords because he has neither an army nor a bureaucracy to actually exercise any power independent from going through his lords).

If we want to consider this a realistic world the best approach, I think, is that things changed dramatically from the days in which the Targaryens had dragons to days in which they did not and then to days in which they were deposed.

During the dragon days there power would have been absolute despite the fact that there they weren't absolute monarchs in the sense of formal modern absolutism. The idea that the king is the representative of god and the absolute authority is a common idea in the middle ages even in those societies which could not enforce it (or only through the lords). The Targaryens would have done it through their dragons and their lords.

We know that the Dance marked both the beginning of the end of the dragons as well as a great decline in Targaryen power - which means the Targaryen kings were more powerful prior to the Dance than thereafter.

After the dragons died in the days of Aegon III the lack of power would have been somewhat compensated by the remaining semi-divine status and, more importantly, personal charisma which both Daeron I and Baelor I. After that central power seemed to have declined under Aegon IV - who seemed to have ruled absolutely only over his court and household but not the Realm at large (other earlier kings might have been able to rule in this way over everybody).

Daeron II might have strengthened the power of the Iron Throne again, just as Maekar I and Aegon V might have tried to do. Under Jaehaerys II and Aerys II it would have declined again.

Robert seems to be a joke in comparison to even the weakest Targaryen king. He doesn't have the looks and he isn't worshiped or seen as semi-divine. The word of a Targaryen king was always law (e.g. given Aerys' many crazy and cruel commands) but at the end of his reign nobody is caring about or respecting/fearing Robert.

The best way to explain this whole thing is that people actually considered themselves the subjects of the Targaryen kings and obeyed them in all/most things. If they hadn't done that (sort of) voluntarily then the Realm wouldn't have survived the death of the dragons for long. But it is very clear that only the only threat the Targaryens faced throughout their entire reign since the crushing of the Faith Militant were the Targaryens. And that includes both Daemon Blackfyre and Robert Baratheon whose importance both comes from the fact that they were blood relations of the king.

It was the Conqueror's choice to keep the Lannisters, Arryns, and Starks as lords of their regions. He could have eradicated their lines, he could have decided to take their castles and titles from them to hand them to others, it was all his decision. And there is no indication that he granted them any special privileges. In fact, technically it seems to be the king's prerogative whether to allow a son to inherit the title/lordship of his father. Robert allows Robert Arryn to succeed to the Eyrie and the Vale but refuses to grant him the title of Warden of the East.

[DMC]

By definition Westeros is an absolute monarchy.  The term is not to be delineated from feudalism but rather constitutional monarchy, wherein there are formal (and written) constraints on the monarch's power.  Absolute monarchs derive their legitimacy from divine right, and this did not change until the rise of liberalism and social contract theory (Hobbes) culminating in Locke and the Glorious Revolution.  While the Targaryens did not exactly claim divine right, the World Book makes it clear they (and many of their vassals) considered themselves closer to gods than men, and the examples of Aerion at Ashford and Aerys' punishment of Ilyn Payne are analogous.

Of course, the level of power the monarch wields in practice varies considerably even under absolute monarchies, and rarely does such power even approach "absolute" levels.  Whenever this conversation arises on the boards there seems to be a conflation of absolute monarchies with a totalitarian regime.  This is why political scientists are better than historians since we clearly conceptualize our terms.  Anyway, the Targaryens appeared fairly damn totalitarian when they had dragons.  Since then, not so much.

And Lord Varys is also correct that large states must have a strong centralization of power or face fragmentation.  This is why Madison and Hamilton overthrew the Articles of Confederation.  But to my knowledge they did not have dragons and only the former had slaves.