#these discussions are lacking a fundamental grasp on the philosophies of law and state theory

[lemonhemlock]

“Viserys made rhaenyra his heir and his word is law” “the team black kids were accepted by viserys and laenor so their legitimate” “the team black kids are half targaryen so that’s all that matters”

I will throw you off of a damn roof

None these people understand that we’re watching a show set in the medieval era where the laws and rules were different compared to now but they still try to use modern logic to explain it. We learned this in history goddamn it

Not only are the laws, rules, customs and beliefs different, but the entire political structure is fashioned so as to uphold them! Going against them or trying to change them is notoriously difficult!

Kings only started to consolidate more power slowly as feudalism gave way to centralized bureaucracies due to a variety of socio-economical factors that are very obviously lacking in the world of ASOIAF: the development of urban centres, of the merchant class / townspeople capitalists, expansion of trade, momentous events that lead to a decline in population (like plagues or disastrous wars) -> causing a reduction in the number of peasants, meaning that the peasants who did survive were precious human resources that were not so easily replaceable and demanded more rights for themselves, crusades that impoverished a lot of nobles etc etc - all of these which eroded the power of the feudal lord and allowed kings to absorb that power for themselves.

What these people don't understand is that noble lords held a tremendous amount of power over their own lands and, in an era where travel was difficult, the "king's will" was what they made of it. Sure, the king could THEORETICALLY go to war if a vassal was being too contrarian, but he'd have to convince his other vassals to join him and provide him with an army and wars were expensive. So it was much more advantageous to negotiate with these people and compromise rather than impose oneself via violence, although that did also happen, of course.

Another important catalyst for monarchs gaining more power at the expense of nobles is the introduction of gunpowder and CANONS. Previously, castles were incredibly effective at keeping the enemy out since they were nigh impenetrable. You could only take a castle either by sacrificing a ridiculous amount of fighters, rendering it not worth it, OR by starving it out, which could take MONTHS, was expensive AF and was also not worth it. Now, with canons, if you disobeyed the king, it became a lot easier to get fucked.

Aegon V has this very problem when the nobles opposed his smallfolk policies. So what does he decide to do?? He tries to come up with his own canons, which in-universe, means bringing dragons back. And we all know how that ended.

The difference, of course, is canons are not weapons of mass destruction, whereas dragons most definitely are. So the nobles are kind of in the right here to oppose a monarch that can unleash such a devastating level of death and destruction with no checks and balances imposed on their power.

Viserys can yap all he likes how Rhaenyra is his "rightful" heir, the nobles will only say yeah right and crown Aegon after he dies. "The King's word is law" - how is it law if you do not exercise the monopoly on violence? How is it law if you cannot enforce it? The only way you could make it law in these circumstances is if you convince enough people to abide by it somehow via negotiation and debate. The "law" you're talking about remains a laughable suggestion otherwise.