Westeros has no Magna Carta- what is GRRM writing?

[The Fattest Leech]

I am at my desk working with YouTube on in the background when this video popped up (again) and this line stuck out to me like it hasn't even before (approx the 2:45 mark)..

...Ned and Robert had to had to deal with there was no doubt that the Mad King was mad he he was you know paranoid and violent and he was abusing his power and Westeros has no Magna Carta or anything like that it was no way to handle this within the rule of law but was what they do justified especially when you consider...

So, I am fairly open to the idea that GRRM used the Magna Carta (read about it here for a refresher) as a "general example" for describing the organization and law of Westeros... sorry lawyers

However, what we do know is that there are certain peace treaties that have been created across time, agreements that came ages before the Andals and Targaryens even. Torrhen Stark had to make an agreement with Aegon the Dragon to keep his people from burning... something which Mad King Aerys broke. There was a Pact between the children and the First Men. Then we have the Pact of Ice and Fire. <-- not an all inclusive list which could include additional items like Craster, etc, etc, which isn't the real point of my upcoming question.

I also want to add that in most of GRRM's work outside of ASOIAF, he repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly has history and knowledge (truth) obscured by time. In addition, he often, often, often has a society (large or small) hold some sort of vow system which eventually the main character comes to realize through his journey, is actually false or not to be trusted in its entirety. This was part of the basis for an old thread I started that shows how GRRM is setting up the Night's Watch vows to be a distortion of true history. So it seems to me GRRM (and nearly every other SciFi-Fantasy author) is quite familiar with setting a structure to their societies, for their own narrative purposes, without having to copy things (especially 1:1) like the US Constitution, as a random example. Read that old thread here if you want --> Night's Watch Vows and the truth of history 

This brings me to my question...s (sorry, they multiplied like mogwai): How much do you think GRRM is using his ASOIAF story to try and tell the story of the real world (rather beyond his own ideas of simply creating a story he would want to read)? Do you think GRRM is using current political strife reflected directly in his work, or the other way around? How much of real world ideals do you think we readers should use when analyzing his books- and I will add all of Martinworld works?

Please use book quotes https://asearchoficeandfire.com/

or SSM's https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=006888510641072775866:vm4n1jrzsdy

This is just general chatter, no wrong answers unless you go there

 

Thank you for your time... and stop touching your face!

[Tyrion1991]

22 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I am at my desk working with YouTube on in the background when this video popped up (again) and this line stuck out to me like it hasn't even before (approx the 2:45 mark)..

...Ned and Robert had to had to deal with there was no doubt that the Mad King was mad he he was you know paranoid and violent and he was abusing his power and Westeros has no Magna Carta or anything like that it was no way to handle this within the rule of law but was what they do justified especially when you consider...

So, I am fairly open to the idea that GRRM used the Magna Carta (read about it here for a refresher) as a "general example" for describing the organization and law of Westeros... sorry lawyers

However, what we do know is that there are certain peace treaties that have been created across time, agreements that came ages before the Andals and Targaryens even. Torrhen Stark had to make an agreement with Aegon the Dragon to keep his people from burning... something which Mad King Aerys broke. There was a Pact between the children and the First Men. Then we have the Pact of Ice and Fire. <-- not an all inclusive list which could include additional items like Craster, etc, etc, which isn't the real point of my upcoming question.

I also want to add that in most of GRRM's work outside of ASOIAF, he repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly has history and knowledge (truth) obscured by time. In addition, he often, often, often has a society (large or small) hold some sort of vow system which eventually the main character comes to realize through his journey, is actually false or not to be trusted in its entirety. This was part of the basis for an old thread I started that shows how GRRM is setting up the Night's Watch vows to be a distortion of true history. So it seems to me GRRM (and nearly every other SciFi-Fantasy author) is quite familiar with setting a structure to their societies, for their own narrative purposes, without having to copy things (especially 1:1) like the US Constitution, as a random example. Read that old thread here if you want --> Night's Watch Vows and the truth of history 

This brings me to my question...s (sorry, they multiplied like mogwai): How much do you think GRRM is using his ASOIAF story to try and tell the story of the real world (rather beyond his own ideas of simply creating a story he would want to read)? Do you think GRRM is using current political strife reflected directly in his work, or the other way around? How much of real world ideals do you think we readers should use when analyzing his books- and I will add all of Martinworld works?

Please use book quotes https://asearchoficeandfire.com/

or SSM's https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=006888510641072775866:vm4n1jrzsdy

This is just general chatter, no wrong answers unless you go there

 

Thank you for your time... and stop touching your face!

 

I think it’s the same interview where he goes on to talk about his experiences during the Vietnam War. He was of the view that everything would be okay if they voted the right person in to end the war. He contrasted that to some anarchist types he met at Uni who wanted to destroy the State. This is the inspiration. I don’t think current politics informs his writing very much and I think he is a man of his time.

His stuff is more about war, the state and power. Is Dany a good person if she tries to conquer Westeros with Dothraki?Should we bomb North Vietnam into the Stone Age? Whereas modern politics is far more to do with identity and internationalism/nationalism.

I think Ice and Fire consciously avoids these topics. You have a multiethnic realm that accepts three distinct faiths without any real issue. There’s very little ethnic and religious violence within the series; especially considering the medieval setting. Other fantasy authors make this way more the focus, such as mages and elves being persecuted like the Jews in Medieval Europe. Yet there’s not any ethnic cleansing and everyone’s far too rational. Joffrey didn’t call for the Northerners to be exterminated as subhuman First Men or forcibly converted to the Seven. So even our villains don’t make this a point of contention. All the conflict is kept very much focused on the characters and these family disputes. Maybe his later books will put this in and arguably some of the extended lore does touch on these themes; the main story not so much. In fact before Crows I’d say religion is barely in the story.

However I doubt it. Five books in and it’s all very tame. I am not expecting pogroms, witchhunts, ethnic cleansing and religious war to suddenly become a thing in the penultimate novel onwards. It would be too much of a shift in emphasis.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Yeah, he talked about the petty politics of Kings Landing blinding Westeros to the big threats. Its a cautionary tale for how we're arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic as a society. Dany and the Others as the two far off, distant, unimaginable threats who will come claim lives if people don't band together to stop them. When he conceived this in 1992 he probably had nuclear destruction on the brain ...he's talked about his fear of nuclear weapons. As a forward thinking futurist, its also true that he probably saw environmental destruction coming toward us. A lot of scifi writers predicted end times via climate or nuclear apocalypse. I also think there is a lesson about rule by cults of personality in there, since dictators coming to power by promising "liberation" and "restoring us to greatness" were a common occurrence in the 20th century.

[SeanF]

I don't think there's any profound political message at all in these stories.  The stories are character-driven, not ideology-driven.  He just enjoys throwing his six main characters into appalling predicaments, in order to see how they get on.

Obviously, the conflict for the Iron Throne will come to be seen as petty when set against the real threat that comes from the North.  That said, while it ought not to matter who sits the Iron Throne, it will in fact matter.  Will they have a ruler who will in fact recognise the threat for what it is, bury the hatchet with enemies, or a ruler who is still bent on petty revenge?

[Angel Eyes]

Speaking of religion in the books (to connect the clergy were amongst those with the Magna Carta): is it just me, or GRRM hasn’t done much to develop the Faith of the Seven? The Faith of the Seven is the dominant religion in Westeros apart from the North and the Iron Islands, but only two Southern characters (Catelyn and Davos) seem pious of those who follow the Seven. Other POV characters who live in the South have a more agnostic approach, with Littlefinger getting a special mention of referring to religion as “pious bleating”. Medieval society had pious people from top to bottom (hence the Crusades), how could you build on such a quicksand?

Also: are there any regional differences between how different kingdoms practice their faith, ie does the Vale practice their faith differently from the Reach?

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Speaking of religion in the books (to connect the clergy were amongst those with the Magna Carta): is it just me, or GRRM hasn’t done much to develop the Faith of the Seven? The Faith of the Seven is the dominant religion in Westeros apart from the North and the Iron Islands, but only two Southern characters (Catelyn and Davos) seem pious of those who follow the Seven. Other POV characters who live in the South have a more agnostic approach, with Littlefinger getting a special mention of referring to religion as “pious bleating”. Medieval society had pious people from top to bottom (hence the Crusades), how could you build on such a quicksand?

Also: are there any regional differences between how different kingdoms practice their faith, ie does the Vale practice their faith differently from the Reach?

The importance of religion in this kind ofsociety is hugely understated.

There's a real disconnect between the high status of women within the Faith (women can rise to be the equivalent of Cardinals) and their status in secular society.

[The Grey Wolf]

@Angel Eyes @SeanF

Y'all don't want to open that can of worms.

[Hugorfonics]

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

Torrhen Stark had to make an agreement with Aegon the Dragon to keep his people from burning... something which Mad King Aerys broke.

Is that true? (Uh, book quote please) Its probably from f&b or one of that other "fake history book", we never hear about it through the memory of Stark povs

I mean Westeros has no real restraints on its king, (which is what I think he meant by Magna Carta, in American public schools when we learn the history of the U.S.A it starts with the Magna Carta. Restraints on the English king.) (despite having restraints on Stark. At least thats what I gathered from the Crangormans veiled threat 

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."

Although Stark also gets the 100% loyal oaths too

Quote

A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf's Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!"

)

 Anyway, I think what GRRM was getting at is that Ned and Robert had to become criminals in order to put down Aerys, like GRRM contemplated overthrowing the government like some of his passionate friends. But as a believer in the American government he decided not too. Was that wrong, he asked. American democracy is gentle and should be nurtured or it may fall into decay like other democracies have in this world, long story short, thered probably be no Trump now lol

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

, which isn't the real point of my upcoming question.

Lol. Sorry

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

: How much do you think GRRM is using his ASOIAF story to try and tell the story of the real world (rather beyond his own ideas of simply creating a story he would want to read)?

None at all, or at least tries not to

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

Do you think GRRM is using current political strife reflected directly in his work,

How could he not? I mean, no disrespect to historical political strife, but we're living through some crazy shit

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

or the other way around?

Wait, what?

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

How much of real world ideals do you think we readers should use when analyzing his books- and I will add all of Martinworld works?

Analyze to figure out whats gonna happen later or to figure out why Danys right to burn them all? Either way, all of em. 

On 4/8/2020 at 4:32 PM, The Fattest Leech said:

... and stop touching your face!

Gotcha  Thanks

[BlackLightning]

I think the Westeros version of the Magna Carta is going to be part of the finale or denouement or epilogue (or whatever you want to call it) in A Dream of Spring

GRRM never misses an opportunity to talk about his disappointment with Tolkein failing to explain Aragon's reign as king--tax policy and all.

[BlackLightning]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

The importance of religion in this kind ofsociety is hugely understated.

There's a real disconnect between the high status of women within the Faith (women can rise to be the equivalent of Cardinals) and their status in secular society.

Good point!!!!

[The Grey Wolf]

4 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I think the Westeros version of the Magna Carta is going to be part of the finale or denouement or epilogue (or whatever you want to call it) in A Dream of Spring

GRRM never misses an opportunity to talk about his disappointment with Tolkein failing to explain Aragon's reign as king--tax policy and all.

Except GRRM did the same for the most part in F & B V1.

[BlackLightning]

3 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Except GRRM did the same for the most part in F & B V1.

I'm confused.

What I am saying is that GRRM is probably saving the Westeros version of the Magna Carta for the very end of A Dream of Spring.

[Ser Leftwich]

There are few ideological battles that happen in Westeros. Early on the faith had issues about the Targ incest and polygamy, but they lost.

In the 'real' world of the middle ages/Europe, the Catholic church was communication between the ruling parties, writing, and knowledge. Almost exclusively. The fact that the maesters and the faith are separate entities is the crux. Basic everyday communication, while somewhat biased by the politics of the Citadel, is not biased by the Faith of the Seven and enforcing the Faith in the everyday functioning of the ruling class/kingdom.

Without that organized, extended influence/opposition in the form of the Faith, along with little to no codified laws in Westeros, there is no redress to absolute monarchy.

[SeanF]

39 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I think the Westeros version of the Magna Carta is going to be part of the finale or denouement or epilogue (or whatever you want to call it) in A Dream of Spring

GRRM never misses an opportunity to talk about his disappointment with Tolkein failing to explain Aragon's reign as king--tax policy and all.

And yet, Martn himself supplies not a lot of detail about how the government of Westeros works.

[BlackLightning]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

And yet, Martn himself supplies not a lot of detail about how the government of Westeros works.

Really?

I feel like Martin's done a fine job. The way the government of Westeros works is simple and straightforward. It's a simplified version of European feudalism with touches of Japanese feudalism.

Smallfolk owe allegiance to a knight or lord. The knight or lord owes allegiance to the Lord Paramount/Warden. The Lord Paramount/Warden owes allegiance to the king. That's it.

The king is the ultimate lawmaking, enforcing and judicial power in the realm and he has his bodyguards and council of advisers who help him and oversee aspects of the government (Master of Coin = Secretary of Treasury, Master of Whisperers = Head of CIA, etc.) under his supervision.

 

It's pretty simple and straightforward. A government in which the monarch's power is restricted and either has to share power with the people he/she rules OR has to answer to a council of judges is bound to get more complicated. Because there will laws saying who can do what, when, where and how and ways of enforcing those laws. Abiding by "The king has spoken" spiel won't work anymore.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 4/8/2020 at 4:10 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

I think Ice and Fire consciously avoids these topics. You have a multiethnic realm that accepts three distinct faiths without any real issue. There’s very little ethnic and religious violence within the series; especially considering the medieval setting. Other fantasy authors make this way more the focus, such as mages and elves being persecuted like the Jews in Medieval Europe. Yet there’s not any ethnic cleansing and everyone’s far too rational. Joffrey didn’t call for the Northerners to be exterminated as subhuman First Men or forcibly converted to the Seven. So even our villains don’t make this a point of contention. All the conflict is kept very much focused on the characters and these family disputes. Maybe his later books will put this in and arguably some of the extended lore does touch on these themes; the main story not so much. In fact before Crows I’d say religion is barely in the story.

However I doubt it. Five books in and it’s all very tame. I am not expecting pogroms, witchhunts, ethnic cleansing and religious war to suddenly become a thing in the penultimate novel onwards. It would be too much of a shift in emphasis.

I disagree about Westeros being multiethnic. Language is the most common marker of ethnicity, and they all implausibly speak the Andal language despite the huge distances. There are multiple religions, but remember that medieval Jews had the Yiddish and Ladino languages, and we know from genetics that after a founding group of men married local women in central Europe the Ashkenazi were endogamous for centuries. There doesn't seem to be a comparable barrier to interfaith marriage in Westeros.

[Tyrion1991]

3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I disagree about Westeros being multiethnic. Language is the most common marker of ethnicity, and they all implausibly speak the Andal language despite the huge distances. There are multiple religions, but remember that medieval Jews had the Yiddish and Ladino languages, and we know from genetics that after a founding group of men married local women in central Europe the Ashkenazi were endogamous for centuries. There doesn't seem to be a comparable barrier to interfaith marriage in Westeros.

 

The language is a question of convenience for the writer. It would be awkward if Sansa could not speak to Joffrey; or if the Starks could barely speak the language of the peasants. I think the Andals, First Men and Rhoynar are depicted as distinct groups.

But given the scale of Westeros there really should be way more ethnic, religious and social groups than is presented. Like the North shouldn’t be a monolithic entity with everyone having a shared basically national identity.

Even Scotland, much smaller than the North, had multiple groups and religions in it including Norse, Gaelic Highlanders, the Isles and the Lowland Scots. Catholic’s and Protestants. Yet a Kingdom many, many times larger just has the First Men and the Old Gods. People might have some quirks like on Bear Island but they don’t perceive themselves as being radically different to the Northerners. In the real world this would be a source of huge conflict.

George didn’t do this because he wants the Starks to have an easy time of it and not have to deal with real and tangible problems. Instead the fault lines are based on old family grudges with the Bolton’s and Karstarks.

Its an oversimplification that has a major impact on how we perceive the story. Imagine if the North was like Yugoslavia and once it breaks away from this larger multi ethnic empire it starts to implode. Why don’t you see a rise of localism and people asking “why can’t we be free?” and “why should we let those central plains folk tell us what to do?”. Considering the Starks conquered the North and their base is plains dwelling Northerners in the centre there should be more conflict here. Giving every Northerner a shared identity and making them all universally agree with the notion of a United North is extremely convenient. It has a material impact on how the reader the story and the legitimacy of the Stark cause. If they had to immediately start oppressing groups within the North it would make the whole Project very dubious.

Plus the absence of religious persecution is a massive difference between Westeros and medieval Europe. It’s very odd that the Seven haven’t made conversion and converting the pagan North a matter of policy. What if some Rhoynar still worshipped the old turtle god and kept to their old ways. Why wouldn’t they be perceived as subversive and ostracised/persecuted like the Jews of the Middle Ages. Where are all the ghettos? Lots of fantasy writers, even video games, have explored this concept because it is an easy way of bringing conflict into a story. The only reason for George, ostensibly writing a dark and gritty world, to not go there is because he is avoiding themes of ethnic violence and religious persecution.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Really?

I feel like Martin's done a fine job. The way the government of Westeros works is simple and straightforward. It's a simplified version of European feudalism with touches of Japanese feudalism.

Smallfolk owe allegiance to a knight or lord. The knight or lord owes allegiance to the Lord Paramount/Warden. The Lord Paramount/Warden owes allegiance to the king. That's it.

The king is the ultimate lawmaking, enforcing and judicial power in the realm and he has his bodyguards and council of advisers who help him and oversee aspects of the government (Master of Coin = Secretary of Treasury, Master of Whisperers = Head of CIA, etc.) under his supervision.

 

It's pretty simple and straightforward. A government in which the monarch's power is restricted and either has to share power with the people he/she rules OR has to answer to a council of judges is bound to get more complicated. Because there will laws saying who can do what, when, where and how and ways of enforcing those laws. Abiding by "The king has spoken" spiel won't work anymore.

But, that's no more detailed than the Lord of the Rings.  That's not a big problem for me.  There's no need to get into the detail of government in either this series or LOTR, but I've never really considered Martin's criticism to be justified.  Aragorn's tax policy was just not important to the plot of LOTR.

If there were the level of detail that Martin wanted in LOTR, then one would want to know things like;  are there town/city councils, and what powers do they have?  Who administers justice and collects taxes and customs dues, royal officials or local lords?  What is the typical oath of fealty in this society?  Are the peasants of Westeros free, or serfs, or a mixture? How powerful is the royal bureaucracy?  Is it legal for a lord to put  one of his tenants to death without trial? What is the institutional make up of the Faith?  Does religious tolerance apply throughout Westeros, or is it up to each lord to determine what religions are permitted on his domain etc. 

 

[The Wondering Wolf]

If I remeber correctly, GRRM did not criticise Tolkien's missing worldbuilding but his approach that a good man would automatically be a good king. Aragorn is a great guy, so his reign is great as well. GRRM would have liked Tolkien to show how Aragorn ruled and dealt with problems. The tax thing is just one example. 

[The Grey Wolf]

@The Wondering Wolf

Except Tolkien actually discussed a number of Aragorn's policies. His relationship with the Easterlings, Rohan, Ents, Mordor, and Ghan-buri-Ghan's people, his rebuilding of the Arnori capital, his decision to forbid men entering the Shire and to abide by that rule himself, etc.

@SeanF

Exactly what you said. Just look at the way he wrote Jaehaerys I if you need proof. (General "you, not you specifically.)