#Absolute Monarchy

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to the Absolute Monarchy

As there are many breeds of government, there are equally as many species of monarchy. Today, we will be learning about the concept of absolute monarchy and how we can write them within our WIPs.

What is Absolute Monarchy?

Absolute monarchy is when the monarch controls the country, the government and the people alone. The monarch has all power, militarily and politically. Their word is law, they control everything. They have governments, they have advisors and councillors but at the end of the day, they are the last word on every matter.

Perks of Being a Despot an Absolute Monarch

It's really a no brainer. Ultimate power, ultimate control and importance. Who wouldn't want that? Nobody can tell you what to do. Nobody can stop you making decisions you feel are right. Nobody can prevent you from doing mad shit like:

Riding a horse across the Bay of Baiae

Building a vast palace on a swamp that almost bankrupts your realm and kills a shit load of people

Constantly invade France for the lols

Declare war on the sea

Rig the Olympics

The Downsides of Absolute Monarchy

Most people would but absolute monarchy comes at a price. If you're the most powerful person in the kingdom, and every choice and decision is yours, then every mistake, every bad decision, every single thing is your fault. The crops failed? Your agricultural legislation. Your people are starving? You're starving them. No accommodation? That's a nice palace you got there, shame if somebody were burn you inside that fucking palace, huh? The thing about absolute power is that it corrupts and unchecked, anybody can become a monster. And of course, people don't generally like monsters.

When Absolute Monarchy Goes Wrong

When you are alone on top, all the hatred and ire is fixed on you. And people don't generally like the idea of one person deciding their fate, especially when they are forced into silence. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the English Civil War all at the heart were conflicts of an Absolute Monarchy vs those under it. With the growth of different political parties and idealogies, the modern era has seen the abolishing of absolute monarchies. Monarchies had to adapt or die out and today, there are only a handful left. An absolute monarch ought to never forget that while they have all the power, that could be the key to their unravelling. The Tsars of Russia found this out the hardwayAn absolute monarch who pays attention to the climate around them and knows when to quit, is one that may be able to survive.

The Right Person vs The Wrong Person

There's no logical reason to leave the fate of millions in the hands of one person, that is even more dangerous when that person is a buffoon. If one is going to do this foolish thing, the person who takes that responsibility and duty will have to be decesive, pragmatic, strong, able to think on their feet, organised, passionate. They must be able to make the right choice, no matter the consequences. They must have the fortitude to lead their country to stability during all troubles. Anything else, could lead them and the country to disaster. Yes, it's an impossible undertaking but some have managed it well enough to be called successful.

[deadpresidents]

How many absolute monarchs are there in the world?

•King Salman of Saudi Arabia •Pope Francis •Sultan Haitham bin Tariq of Oman •Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei •The King of Swaziland (now Eswatini): King Mswati III of Swaziland (AKA Eswatini) •United Arab Emirates: Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed (Each of the seven Emirates that form the UAE have their own absolute monarch and Sheikh MBZ, as leader of Dubai, is the overall ruler of the nation.)

Did I miss anybody? I think those are the only absolute monarchs still in power today. The rest of the world's royalty are constitutional monarchs, so they reign but do not rule.

(There's an argument for including Kim Jong Un on the list of absolute monarchs despite the fact that he's not a King and North Korea is a Communist country. He's obviously a dictator, but the Kim dynasty has virtually ruled North Korea like a secular monarchy for nearly 75 years with the supreme leaders inheriting their power through hereditary succession. Kim Jong Un took over immediately upon the death of his father, Kim Jong Il, who had assumed power when his father -- North Korea's first paramount leader, Kim Il Sung -- died in 1994. Of course, North Korea isn't officially considered a monarchy, but the manner in which the Kim family has ruled the country and transferred power from father-to-son for three generations and counting resembles the structure of an absolute monarchy more than a "traditional" totalitarian dictatorship.)

[horizon-verizon]

Was Westeros an absolute monarchy?

*EDITED POST* (11/14/23)

No, it was a feudalist society with a monarch more powerful than any real feudal monarch because they had dragons and were able to create a new concept of divine-ish rule through the Doctrine of Exceptionalism. The Doctrine didn't say that the Targs had power b/c the Seven granted it to them (like how absolute monarchs claimed) but it did say that no one in Westeros could criticize or rebel against the dynasty for its custom of sibling marriage. The reason the Doctrine gave was that the Targs do not come from a Seven or Andal background. It said that since they have dragons and used them to conquer Westeros (there are such things as the "right to rule by conquest" in real history, you can check out William the Conqueror), they are the rightful rulers.

Feudalist societies are structured by groups of units holding land in exchange for service or labor AND those landholders having rights to the land through inheritance & kinship [in one of the reblogs below]. There is a set of reciprocal legal & military obligations among the warrior aristocracy: lords have fiefs that their vassals live on, and those vassals owe allegiance, services, and/or payments to the lord. The monarch in such a system was the "supreme" holder of the lands and territories and everyone owed their allegiance to them, but monarchs also were sometimes dependent on non-royal nobles to provide armies and in the earliest periods of the Middle Ages, the "great" lords grew & retained their power/resources separate from the monarch, governing their fiefs as independent states. Even minor lords could govern their fiefs as if they were separate states as long as they could self-supply.

Monarchs were usually kept in check by other lords' powers bc these lords had their own fiefs and vassals. The more ability you, the monarch, have to raise armies (or other tools) to intimidate other lords, the more you could impose and support your own monarchist agendas/laws. (This is all how we learned what a "feudalist" state is, through how historians broke it down. The very description of feudalism actually only came up after it ended.)

In absolute monarchies, the monarch's power & actions aren't questioned or limited by any written law, legislature, court, economic sanction, religion, custom, etc. In other words, there are no official or organized checks on a monarch's power. And they accomplish or maintain this by:

insisting on the concept that their power is God-given and "partner" with the "papacy" (or whatever supreme religious institution is there) to enforce that concept through violence or reconstruction

OR doing away with the prior supreme religious institution: taking the "Church's" lands or rights to lands or breaking the country off from the "Church" so they create a new Church/religion and take over as its head (make that a royal hereditary office)

raising totally independent, royal armies

seizing nobles' lands and absorbing them for such armies, palaces, reconstructions of critical infrastructure for the crown's own use or ownership

setting up large royal courts where all/most nobles and their families (or most) were required to attend to the monarch and the royal family -- may be for a specific period of time and this isn't like a visit where the monarch hosts, this is like being called in and told to stay -> but an absolute monarch could make as if these families having their own quarters within the grand palace is a great honor or these quarters may come with pecuniary and other social benefits/prestige

OR pushing most/all nobles (the lords and a huge chunk of their clan/families) to live in certain cities/areas together close to the palace

And absolute monarchies developed as "solutions" to a monarch's checked powers back in the feudalist days.

This is what I say in this reblog:

Westeros does not have an absolute monarchy and none of the Targs were absolute monarchs like the Louis and Sun Kings of France in the 18th century, as a reblogger pointed out. [...] At the same time, The lords' rights to their family's properties are partially determined by the king, in the existence of legitimization, which can only happen if is the monarch doing it. Lords can only acknowledge bastards, not legitimize them, in Westeros. The king/monarch can legally strip lands, titles, privileges, etc from anyone they choose. Westeros is not a constitutional monarchy, either. And the word of the feudal or absolute monarch still is FINAL--both of these types have the monarch give the final authority.

Basically in ASoIaF, the Targs can act/are closer to absolute monarchs but live in a "feudalist" state. Even after they lost their dragons, they were never seen as tyrants or inherently tyrannical because:

the Targs did not oppress, kill, or menace large swaths of nobles or smallfolk (the nobles' jurisdiction) on the whole nor consistently

as per feudal ideology, they were the kings and supreme rulers whom nobles swore oaths, and like we saw in Ned, many lords and their families do believe or pragmatically rely on the social hierarchy facilitated through bonds of loyalty to the king and his family...it supports their own right to rule

the nobles, evident from the very beginning, wanted their own ins into royalty/power through the Targs--dragons or not

NOR do anything the nobles themselves would not do if they had dragons

(for the commoners)there hasn't been anything like the Black Plague where nearly a third of people died and the value of their labor increased enough for negotiation held AND the Doctrine of Exceptionalism and its Faith-support reinforced the Targs' right to rule

Robert even didn't dislike the Targs until one made moves on "his" girl.

However, there has never been a constitutional monarchy in Westeros or in any pre-Westerosi kingdom in the same continent.

Constitutional monarchies are those where the monarch's decisions are checked by a written constitution and have a legislative (law-making/approving) body of people who judge and prescribe some of the monarch's decisions or actions. Their actions are bound by an established legal system. These monarchs usually cannot set public policy or choose political leaders for specific positions...at least legally.

[historyfiles]

Liege: Revolution and Republic: both in France and Liege the old political regime of absolute monarchy was in crisis at the end of the eighteenth century.

[ilikefelines]

Sigh.

No, Westeros isn't an absolute monarchy it's a medieval vassalage and the king's word is only law when he can enforce it. Rhaenyra's - I like her book character not so much the show where they white washed her - children aren't legitimate just because the king and the Velaryon's pretend they are. Blood and legality are inextricably linked in this world - it was made pretty obvious in the main series of books.

Now, some people will argue that it's fine that her kid's aren't Laenors because their claim comes through her. The thing is

a) people can only have a claim when they're trueborn/legitimised by royal decree. Example: If a bastard of House Mooton said that his bastardy didn't matter and that he could press his claim to lordship of Maidenpool because it rests solely on the fact that he has his lordly father's blood, irrespective of legitimacy, people would laugh at him.

You need to be trueborn as well, because then what would stop bastards with noble blood from attempting to usurp their noble family's inheritance? Noble blood and being trueborn is what makes a claim, elsewise we could argue that even dragon-seed's have a right to the throne.

b) this whole line of argument ignores the dynastic reasons behind Rhaenyra's marriage to her cousin Laenor. It was to combine both of their powerful claims to the throne. Laenor was the son of Rhaenys, who under Andal Law, had more right to the throne than Viserys. Viserys hoped that by marrying Rhaenyra to Laenor he could bolster her children's claim to the throne.

Combining the two powerful claims - and prior to Viserys's kingship Laenor's claim was more powerful that Rhaenyra's and arguably after - was the entire purpose of the marriage. If they'd produced trueborn children those kids would've have been able to assert their claim to the Iron Throne because of both their mothers - and crucially as much as the fandom likes to ignore this - their father's blood.

This is what I think and what I believe the source material to be telling us. You've a right to agree or disagree but PLEASE keep it respectful. No, I don't hate TB stans I just really disagree with them but that shouldn't stop us from having a polite conversation, right?

[frownyalfred]

“oh god she won’t stop talking about the ninth wave” we are so close to the end folks, I promise! just a few chapters left and then you’ll be free of me talking about it nonstop. but until then please be kind in the asks 🥺💜 if it’s not your cup of tea i recommend just unfollowing and/or checking back in a month.

[hyacinthsdiamonds]

I think it's a rumour started by a parody joke account, but the way we all heard a variation of "F1 driver Franco Colapinto hits it off with Norwegian Princess" and immediately went:

[queenvhagar]

HBO adapting Fire and Blood: "Well we had to choose one side to be the good guys, you can't have a good show where everyone is a terrible person, the audience will have no one to root for, it just won't work!"

Also HBO:

[imfromthemiddlekingdom]

I am BEGGING the writers of HotD and its fans to understand that Westeros is a FEUDAL monarchy. Not an absolute monarchy. If we wanted to see absolute monarchy where the Kings word is law and must be obeyed, YiTi is right there.

In a feudal society, the king must be obeyed but his word is NOT law. The power is shared between a king and his nobles and therefore Laws and Customs must be obeyed even and especially by the royal household. The social contract between a feudal king and their vassals are the corner stone of feudal society and if the king breaks said social contract, the nobles are well within their rights to rebel. Everything that happened in the main series was due to the monarch breaking their social contract to their lords left and right.

Viserys, in said society. Cannot choose his own heir if it went against convention. If he had that power as a feudal king why didn’t Jaehaerys use his power as king to nominate him as heir after Baelon died? He had to have called a great council because lords and kings did not have the power to choose. If Viserys wanted Rhaenyra to be queen after him he should’ve codified the succession laws, but if he did it his entire line would’ve been usurpers dating back to Jaehaerys.

Let it be said that Valaryin succession laws are more misogynistic than Andal ones, as we’ve seen time and time again that a uncle inherits before the daughter (Jaehaerys with Aerea, Baelon with Rhaenys and finally Viserys before both Laena and Laenor). The rest of Andal and First Men houses follows the Andal succession laws where sons inherit before daughters and daughters before uncles and cousins.

Rhae Royce was a lady in her own right because she was her father's only child. Jeyne Arryn too. But based on all existing precedent regarding who should inherit the Iron Throne, Rhaenyra had no right to it. Not without discrediting her entire line as they became king through means that were arguably usurpation in all meaning of the word dating to Jaehaerys era.

In an absolute monarchy she would’ve stood a chance even without oaths and alliances but that would’ve been challenge too as soon as her sons gave the more misogynistic nobles a reason to doubt her worthiness. But this story is set in a feudal society where conventions hold weight and breaking social contracts means heavy repercussions to whomever broke it first. And before someone brings up the whole “Laenors gay! Do you want her to assault him!!!”thing we can literally look at GoT Margery and her proposed solution to Renly being completely uninterested in the female sex. She had her chance and squandered it by having a bastard in next to no time after her wedding.

[antiquepearlss]

I love the idea of Varian being a little anti-monarchist and Rapunzel just…agreeing lmao

“the crown and their expenses waste taxpayer dollars! The gold thrones you sit on are built off the backs of hardworking peasants!”

“yeah I know I can’t stand it, and it’s so wasteful too, why do you want to sit on gold???”

“Rulers have too much power and are too easily tempted to exploit it!”

“I fully agree, as much as I love my father I think he needs to be held back more. The citizens of Corona should be given more of a say.”

“The monarchy should be torn down!”

“you’re right!”

[horizon-verizon]

Great briefing why absolute monarchy is historically woefully inaccurate to use for attacking the Targaryens (and it's obvious it is done to sell a contrieved rhetoric of 'evil Targ absolutism' vs. 'good native Westerosi feudalists' for transparent reasons, which makes the usage even more foolish). Hopefully GRRM is as good a historian as he claims tho, he did term-drop absolute monarchy (coz dragons) en passant once or twice in interviews. He should know better doing this facing THIS fandom.

Anon is talking about this post.

Well, GRRM knows EU history more than your "average" modern citizen of the world (as some may imagine), but he still presents a fictional universe with strange depictions of female authority and power for the purposes of an anti-war sentiment [joannalannister] and tying fertility to womanhood. I'm personally so-so with no Targ queen until Rhaenyra in that it makes both Rhaenyra and Dany's arcs that much more emotionally raw, though I would have liked just one moment where Rhaenyra participated in the deliberation of the dragon seeds idea or something. As in she uses her anger to put forward an element of a battle plan of defense.

ASoIaF is very much a show of the worst aspects of medieval society for the drama of characters "making it through" that extremely hierarchical society.

[bethanydelleman]

I think the appeal of an absolute monarchy, especially in this age of extremely slow, ineffective partisan politics, is the idea that if you just had the right person in there, they could make huge, sweeping changes instantly. While watching politicians squabble and bargain over completely necessary reforms, and then not make them because they are afraid to lose the next election, the thought of someone who can make decisions without considering those consequences is very enticing.

Except that is never how monarchies have worked because even the most powerful monarch ultimately fears being dethroned or assassinated. Radical reform has always been hampered by the wealthiest class, who protect their monarch only as long as their interests are served. The safest option is always stagnation. The monarchs who managed to make sweeping changes and reforms were rare and incredibly brave, and that's just not something you can count on.

[syndrossi]

What would happen if one of the twins, most likely Jon calls Otto a servant during an argument. Whose side would Viserys take? Maybe Jon overheard Otto bad-mouthing Daemon and pouring poison in Viserys ears. Jon protested, Otto got sneery and haughty and Jon dropped the 'servant' bomb. What would everyone's reactions be. How would Alicent react to being reduced to a servant's daughter and how would her children. What about the court? Rhaenyra and her family? The rest of the Velaryons?

I mean, Otto is the member of a very proud house, so I doubt many lords would look kindly on an uppity young prince denigrating him, though they might dismiss it as Daemon's bad influence. Otto would probably be incredibly smooth about it, and take on an air of saintly patience/humility and profess to being a servant of the realm, young prince, there is no shame in that.

Not that there wouldn't be a few people cheering him on, but generally, an eight-year-old prince low in the succession acting like he's the better of a man who has spent decades serving two different Targaryen kings as Hand and is the father of the queen isn't going to cause many ripples beyond hurting Daemon's reputation by proxy.

[atopvisenyashill]

people always talk about abolishing the master of whispers position, the thing about this is that this role is always played by a Bad Person bc it’s just inherently a shady role but i think. it’s also kinda crazy to be like “they won’t have a spy system” and maybe this spy system is just bran but a) well that doesn’t really abolish the role does it? and b) i don’t think. it’s going to be a very Good Thing that the spy system is going to be run solely by the nine year old (or however old he is when the books end). and there’s benefit, like To The Person In Charge, to have someone they can trust in this position, i am an advocate for wyman manderly to be some sort of spymaster, he’s p loyal all things considered, whatever, but i wonder How George Thinks That’s Shaking Out. i KNOW the question specifically of “what does master of whispers look like in his endgame” HAS occurred to him, im POSITIVE he’s plotting it out. where’s he going. how do you explain not having a spy system. how do you justify given a 9 year old the power of the nsa 😭

[nobrain-nothoughts]

Our fucking king just said on national tv that "people are always free to find another job" I am going to chew through wood