Does Stannis seem to adhere to a different interpretation of the law than other lords/kings? You point out that Westeros mostly follows a feudalist structure (personal links to the lords directly above and below), but Stannis seems to favour a despotic/absolutist model (where each lord’s duty is to the king before all others). What effects is this likely to have on his kingly ambitions?

warsofasoiaf:

A different interpretation? No. A focus on different aspects of it? Yes. I think you’re fundamentally misinterpreting Stannis. If anything, Stannis is one of the few monarchs who emphasizes the two-way nature of feudalism. He’s focused intently on the oaths and the law. He expects and demands that you fulfill your oaths, just as being the king binds him to protect the realm, serve justice to the people (’they have made my kingdom bleed’). Stannis sees personal desire as wholly subservient to obligation: it doesn’t matter what you think or feel, your position demands certain obligations, and by R’hllor, you will fulfill them. So this would be very bad for lords like Walder Frey, who seems to go out of his way to make excuses to skip out of any obligation he needs. So while I agree he places a far stronger emphasis on oaths and service than other kings in a relative sense, he’s far from despotic. He takes his own obligations incredibly seriously. For all his foibles and his shortcomings, he approaches his responsibilities as ironclad, and that doesn’t make him a Darth Vader “I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further” brand of absolutist. Stannis seems to check his power in respect to the law, and while it’s a far cry from a constitutional monarchy, he respects the power his feudal oaths have over him, and thus he is spared from the iron brand of despotism.

As for which kings follow a despotic, absolutist style. Well, Aegon IV is probably one of the better examples, since he was explicitly said to appropriate inheritances legally bound for someone else. Aerys II too, since he denied Rickard Stark the right to a fair trial that he was entitled to. Bloodraven, though only a Hand, was incredibly despotic with murdering Aenys Blackfyre by misusing royal authority and not fulfilling his oaths to protect the realm from Dagon Greyjoy. Rhaenyra (whether you think she was a queen or not) for ordering Lord Mooton to execute an innocent girl and condemning Addam of Hull without trial or evidence. Nettles might seem like it wouldn’t fall under the oath, but we see with Catelyn’s oath to Brienne that she swears to never command Brienne to commit an action that would bring her dishonor. Swearing obligation is a big thing, and it’s the duty of the overlord not to misuse that power, because that is the way of the absolutist monarch.

Most kings seemed to follow a feudal model as best they could. Jaehaerys I obviously is the great champion of this. Aegon I and Maekar I, but even less luminary kings like Aegon III was committed to bringing justice and protection, food and peace to his realm in his role as king. Baelor Breakspear was huge on this, willing to provide service for the realm just as the realm serves him as Hand.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

Agreed. Despotic is absolutely wrong. I will say, however, that Stannis thinks of Westeros as a unitary nation-state with the king having direct unmediated rights and responsibilities to the individual subject, which is unusual. He’s also much less interested in preserving the rights and liberties (read privileges) of the nobility and focuses a lot more on the King as judicial authority.

So he’s definitely a centralizer and reformer, albeit in a legalist way, but that’s not quite the same thing as being absolutist.