It is necessary to start with the fact that we are facing an absolutely unique phenomenon, which we can call a media text, because it is the union of the book and the series. And the book and the series have been published for many years: the book - since 1996, the series - since 2011. They are intertwined, use similar storylines and, conversely, diverging storylines. The main thing that unites them is the problem: we thank HBO for the continuation of the line, which was set by George Martin. When we pronounce the phrase "Game of Thrones", we understand that this is the first book in the cycle "Song of Ice and Flame", but the same first book gave the general name to the series. Therefore, in the future, I propose to combine this into a single semantic field.
Can we consider that before us the monarchy and the re-creation of the Middle Ages, or the era of the Thirty Years' War, or the story of Richard III? It is not necessary. George Martin and the creators of the series - it's not just the era of XX-XXI centuries, postmodernism. These are people of an era that sociologists call modernity, that is, it is a complex era where a huge number of familiar norms and frameworks have changed radically and are changing before our eyes. The main idea is that there are no usual norms, there are no usual categories.
What is the radical difference between the concept of royal power in Game of Thrones and the authentic medieval one? Again, the Middle Ages are very heterogeneous. If we take history, the king's legitimacy has always been confirmed by anointing, and the king is not just a man, but a guide to divine will. It is for this reason that the king is radically different from everyone else. In this regard, the only ones who somehow meet this criterion are Daenerys and Jon Snow. Because in relation to both we see certain miracles: Jon Snow has returned from the dead, Daenerys has dragons.
But there is a very important point: "Game of Thrones" has religion, but there is no transcendent plan, the concept of God is excluded. God, even in the apophatic sense, as suggested by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings, does not exist at all. That's why the supreme septons change so easily, Sparrowhood comes easily. Because people in the world, which is described by Martin and filmed in the show, observe certain rituals, but do not believe. Therefore, the king is the one who is called the king, but whose legitimacy does not need confirmation from above. Thus George Martin is radically different from John Ronald Ruehl Tolkien, with whom he constantly argues in his texts. Tolkien has a morally oriented picture of the world: there is good, evil, the relationship between them and the personal choice of each hero, which way to go. Everything is different in George Martin's life: politics and the state system are spheres beyond ethical categories, beyond moral norms. The world of the "Game of Thrones" is a world in which there is no good and no evil, but there is power as a universal category.
We have the image of an empty throne. It is empty because everyone can sit on it. This is a category of power, which is a universal attraction for everyone. George Martin knows about the throne that it is extremely uncomfortable to sit on. It is also known that he can hurt those who are not worthy. And Joffrey hurts himself at a certain point, and this is proof that the throne rejects him, because he is a bastard and also absolutely unsuitable king. In the movie, this is not the case at all.
How can we calculate the legitimacy of the ruler? Answer: There is no way. The concept of legitimacy of the ruler in relation to Westeros simply does not exist. Jaime Lannister, who has just killed a formally legitimate king, can sit on the throne. But as we remember in the story, this king was just about to destroy the entire capital with its inhabitants, including himself. Here the question arises: what is good and evil? As Jaime put it, why is Ned Stark a hero and shit instead of honor with Jaime? Although Ned Stark just walked into the hall, he saw Jaime, who had actually won. Ned Stark was insulted because he saw an unworthy man sitting on the throne.
Robert is the king who, as Machiavelli says, was enthroned by the power of the sword, the power of the weapon. He is a valiant king who cannot control and loses his throne. Ned Stark is a formally ideal ruler who is guided by justice. But Ned Stark is a hero of Tolkien, not George Martin, so George Martin's hero dies. Ned Stark is guided by the categories of ethics. What does Sersei Lannister say to him, to whom he has just opened all his plans in the hope that she will run away from the capital, after Robert Baratheon returns, to whom he will reveal the truth about all her crimes? "He who does not play the game of thrones dies. You can either play it or die.