RE: Kingdom vs Empire

Does that mean westeros is full of empires more than kingdoms?

Nymeria’s conquest of dorne led to a polity composed of multiple ethnic groups and cultures, there is the first men, andal, and rhoynar or the division between, stony, salty, and sandy dornish. That seems to be an empire.

Likewise, the Gardners realm was said to be made of four seperate kingdoms (arbor, hightower, marches, and reach proper).

The North has the mountain clans, the ‘regular’ northmen, skaggos, the craggomen, and the southerns from the manderlys.

The vale, has the andals and andalized first men, the mountain clans (though they are rebels) and the sistermen.

The riverlands has two different religious groups.

And thats not even mentioning the stormlander and both ironborn empires.

Plus of course the Targaryen realm.

Also, I find that many people, including myself, have this perception or disposition to think or view empires as somehow ‘better’ in someway than kingdoms (though definetely not necessarily morally better). Would you care to comment on this belief and how it holds up to scrutiny?

To answer your last question first, I don’t see why empires would be considered “better” than kingdoms. They’re not more efficient or effective as political structures – the sheer coordination issues that crop up in empires alone – they don’t lead to more political stability or internal peace, etc. etc.

I would push back a bit on your descriptions above:

Nymeria could have been said to have conquered an empire, if she and her dynasty hadn’t made it a central policy to eradicate all differences between her subjects in the name of creating a common Dornish identity.
The Gardeners might have been considered Emperors if they had left the Kings in place instead of absorbing them into one Reach.
The North’s divisions don’t come close enough to constituting different nations – with the exception of the Manderlys, they’re all First Men, they all worship the Old Gods, etc.
The Vale either forcibly assimilated or excluded the First Men from the polity, so they don’t reconize multiple peoples.
Two religious groups in the Riverlands isn’t enough to distinguish two “nations” in the sense of peoples, not without a lot more religious division on the level of the Thirty Years War.

What you could say is that, by claiming to be the “King of the Andals, the First Men, and the Rhoynar,” Aegon implicitly claimed an empire in Westeros, although hasn’t used the title (or indeed an imperial crown).

Tywin has made somewhat famous the saying “any man who must say ‘I am the king’ is no true king.” Could you explain what he is supposed to mean by that. I can’t really figure it out. I know it’s Tywin and the cornerstone of his character is that he is full of shit, but I would still like to understand.

Ah, good question.

As I understand it, it’s similar to the difference between the first face of power (the coercive authority to achieve compliance) and the second and third (agenda-setting and hegemonic ideological power) faces of power. Namely, that a strong king’s authority is so secure that they don’t need to engage in displays of coercive authority because everyone already accepts them as the true source of legitimacy.

What he’s really talking about is Aerys. Aerys was paranoid and insecure, so he kept lashing out with displays meant to emphasize his kingship – burning people alive, having people’s tongues torn out, etc. The effect was the opposite, to make him seem like a weak, mad king who didn’t deserve to be on the Iron Throne.

Contrast Aerys to Jaehaerys I – a king so secure that he doesn’t need to make open displays of force to get what he wants. All he has to do is show up on a royal progress with all of his dragons and his force of personality and his expert administrators and people knuckle under because they already believe resistance is futile.

In the minority of a king, are the titles of Regent and Protector of the Realm different? Can they be given to different people? Also, does the king, as a minor, have the right to dismiss his regent and appoint a new one?

The King as a minor cannot dismiss his regent, because formally speaking he hasn’t been invested in royal authority yet – he is legally speaking a ward of his Regent, who holds that authority in trust.

So, Regent and Protector of the Realm: not quite the same thing, although they often go together, and they don’t have to happen during a minority. For example, Aemond was Regent when Aegon II was injured, and none of the Regents on the Regency Council of Aegon III were Protectors (not even Unwin Peake). Likewise, Daemon Targaryen was Rhaenyra’s Protector while she was Queen regnant, and Baelor Breakspear was named Protector by Daeron II.

So how we we understand the meaning of all these royal titles?

Here is how I understand it:

King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men is a recognition that the King is monarch of three nations (in the sense of peoples), both in the sense of glorifying the union of the whole of Westeros but also a promise to respect the customs and folkways of these different peoples.
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms is a statement of feudal authority – the king as ultimate liege lord, whose right to rule in part flows from his acclamation and oath-taking by his vassals.
Protector of the Realm is a military title, recognizing the king as the supreme authority in warmaking – he’s the one who gets to declare war and make peace, he’s the one who calls the banners and who sits atop the chain of command in cases of dispute, and lesser military authorities like the Wardens Cardinal get their authority through him. But as I’ve said before, there’s also a recognition of reciprocal obligation to a social contract: because the King is the warmaking authority, he’s also the one responsible for the defense of the realm against foreign invasion and domestic rebellion.That’s why it’s the King’s Peace and the King’s Justice – he’s the one tasked with maintaining law and order in the face of everything from rebellious vassals to bandits and outlaws to common criminals.

And this is why I think we see the two titles sometimes separated. Daemon’s Protectorate was a recognition that he was the commander-in-chief of Rhaenrya’s armies; Baelor’s Protectorate was a statement from Daeron II that Baelor was being eased into becoming King, but also a way to counteract the king’s lack of skill by endowing supreme military authority on someone whose martial abilities were unquestionable. Whereas a Regent represents more the civilian side of power – the Small Council and the royal bureaucracy, the judicial and lawmaking sides of Kingship.