- Parliamentary government is not inconsistent with strong central monarchies – if we take Edward I of England as an example, here was a strong centralizing monarch who used Parliament as a vehicle for gaining internal consensus to higher levels of taxation needed to finance wars of conquest in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, one could argue that it’s a sign of strength, to give up exclusivity of power in exchange for making the wider political class and its wealth and power and status part of the monarchy’s governing system.
- Certainly. Medieval parliaments were pretty heavily weighted in favor of the nobility, after all. Indeed, the “Commons” consisted of knights as well as burghers for a good long while, only gradually became the more dominant branch in the 17th century, and it wasn’t until 1911 that the House of Lords’ veto was abolished.
(1) In a medieval setting, what are the disadvantages (when looking at the polity as a whole) of having a parliamentary type organization in control, as apposed to a strong central monarchy (suppose that instead of the Tullys, your own Order of the Trident was put in charge of the Riverlands post Conquest)? (2) Could such a system, endorsed by the Targaryen monarchy, even coexist alongside the other lord paramouncies? – Thank You, RSAfan.
Published
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 