Reddit reviews A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain

I cannot detail every medieval king of England - that would be too long. I can, however, outline very briefly the fates of 2 or 3 consecutive kings which might help explain that there was no hard and fast rule about counsel power vs. sovereign power:

Edward I is an excellent example of a king exercising sovereign power and effectively binding his nobility to himself and his causes. He was very active in creating policy, expanding the judicial systems, waging war in Wales, Scotland and the mainland. He worked extremely hard to be successful, and to make his kingdom successful. He was forceful enough that his nobles went along with his schemes, and Edward was always in charge. He was an excellent commander and strategist.

Now, contrast that with the fate of his son, Edward II. He was okay as a commander, but he clearly preferred not to fight. He was less interested in the exercise of power as a way of responsibly raising the success and prestige of the kingdom than he was in exercising power to benefit himself and, especially, his friends. His friends often had nearly as much power as he did, and they all - including the king - abused it to enrich themselves, thwart justice, and generally lord it over everyone else. So he had a council, but unlike his father's council which helped develop and implement policy, Edward II's council found itself struggling to get anything done because the favourites (Gaveston and later the Despencers) were running the show with Ed's blessing.

So what could the other nobles do? They tried a few things - they got parliament to back them in forcing Edward to get rid of his favourite, and to let them run the country in a more responsible manner. But then they fought amongst themselves and Ed was able to take the reigns back and recall his favourites. Eventually he alienated everyone, and his wife and son ended up rebelling against him (I'm being very general here) and eventually Ed was relieved of his crown, and either died/was murdered or hung out in Italy as a pilgrim for many years.

So, in short, it depended on the King himself. Henry VIII is another example - he was quite forceful after Wolsey's supremacy was over, but, as Robert Hutchinson has suggested in The Last Days of Henry VIII, some crucial decisions and documents may have been authored and signed by his intimates using a dry stamp because Henry was so ill. If the king was effective, he led the way. If he was egregious, it often caught up with him.

Also see King John I, Richard II, Henry III, Henry VI and James II of England. Other European countries are beyond my knowledgable purview.

I love the Name of the Wind so much it hurts. Rothfuss is an absolutely amazing author, and if you love the subtlety, complexity, foreshadowing, and maturity of Martin's books you will love Rothfuss'.

Joe Abercrombie's series are thematically very similar. They're very dark, very visceral. Abercrombie brings more life to his characters than I think anyone else in the genre, including Martin. The story itself isn't nearly as complex as those written by Martin or Rothfuss, though that isn't to say it's simple and twist-free by any means.

Also, if you enjoy the world of the Seven Kingdoms, there's some great historical non-fiction that you might enjoy. I just finished the Crusades by Thomas Asbridge, which was fascinating. Edward I: A great and terrible king by Marc Morris was also excellent. The latter you will enjoy if you loved all the political wranglings of the nobility in Westeros, while the latter will appeal if you care more about the military aspects. Right now I'm reading Millenium: the end of the world and the forging of Christendom by Tom Holland, which is all about Europe at the turn of the first millenium AD, and the biblical prophecies of the apocalypse rampant at the time. It's the background for so much of the prophecies you see in fantasy series everywhere, and it's quite a fascinating read.

Edit: I suppose it's worth pointing out that the above books were recommended to me by Joe Abercrombie, when I asked him in the comments on his blog for some recommendations of well-written historical books to be used as source material for fantasy worlds.

Other fantasies that I can recommend: Scott Lynch's Gentlemen Bastards books, Peter V Brett's The Warded Man and its sequel. Brent Weeks is good too, though I have mixed feelings on how he ended his first series. Wheel of Time is a classic, but it's long and drags (though Brandon Sanderson has apparently finished it up quite nicely, I just haven't found time to read the 12 books necessary to catch myself back up). Speaking of which, Brandon Sanderson is good too. He's written Elantris (meh), the Mistborn trilogy (quite a fun read, though it won't knock your socks off), and the Way of Kings (which is supposed to be utterly fantastic). He also wrote another book in the Mistborn world that is supposed to be amazing as well.