#bastardy

- Rhaenys isn't excepted despite the law being on her side but Rhaenyra is despite the law not being on her side

- Corlys has his entire "history remembers names not blood" like it makes any sense in a world like Westeros

The story bends itself for Rhaenyra despite logically it shouldn't.

With any realism, The Dance would have ended before it even began

You’re right both the books and especially the show the Dance feel confusing and unrealistic.

In any real medieval setting, inheritance laws and customs almost always favored male heirs over female ones. Even if Rhaenyra was named heir, if her father had a legitimate son, that boy would typically take precedence in the line of succession. Medieval societies were deeply patriarchal, and a woman claiming the throne over a male child even her own would face immense legal, political, and military opposition. So if a son were born, the lords, knights, and even the crown’s allies would likely rally around him instead of Rhaenyra, effectively ending her chance to rule. If you drop the Targaryens into the 12th century (which is where GRRM clearly drew from), Rhaenyra’s claim collapses instantly. Matilda was the daughter of a king with no sons, backed by oaths from every noble in England multiple times and even she couldn’t hold the throne and that was in a realm far less patriarchal than Westeros. Stephen, as the son of Henry I’s younger sister, took the crown simply because he was male. The church backed him, the nobles backed him, and even those who had sworn to Matilda switched sides the moment Stephen seized power.

Now, fast-forward to Westeros: barely 30 years before the Dance, the Great Council of 101 AC voted for male succession choosing Viserys over Rhaenys. That wasn’t just a random decision; it was precedent-setting. So why, realistically, would they suddenly abandon that legal, cultural, and religious principle for Rhaenyra especially when she had brothers, male heirs, and bastards whose paternity everyone whispered about? Let’s not forget: Rhaenyra wasn’t even politically active. She spent most of her adult life on Dragonstone, surrounded by sycophants and out of touch with the power centers of King’s Landing. By contrast, Alicent and Otto had years of direct influence, support from the Faith, and the literal apparatus of government behind them. Rhaenyra? A distant claimant with questionable heirs and a reputation for arrogance. So yes it’s baffling that half the realm supposedly rallied behind her. Nobles in Westeros, like their medieval counterparts, don’t die for principles; they fight for self-interest. And “my queen has three illegitimate kids and wants to rewrite succession law for herself” is not exactly a great rallying cry. The only real answer? Dragons. The Dance only makes sense if we accept that everyone in this world is operating under “dragon logic,” where political realism goes out the window because both sides think their nukes (dragons) will guarantee victory. But if you strip the dragons out and treat this like a real medieval civil war? Yeah. No one would have ever backed Rhaenyra and the only reason I don’t support her claim is because it’s fundamentally unrealistic. From a medieval and Westerosi political standpoint, it could never have worked.

Alicent Is the Only Character Acting Realistically, While Viserys and Rhaenyra’s Choices Make Zero Sense. if you look at it w// historical logic and medieval style politics, Alicent is the only character acting realistically. Rhaenyra makes choices that make no sense in a patriarchal, feudal society, like openly having three bastards and expecting the court to back her. Viserys is indecisive and contradictory, naming her heir but doing nothing to secure her position once he remarries and has sons. None of them act like people living in a real feudal monarchy except Alicent, who’s the only one behaving in a historically realistic way. The rest act like modern characters trapped in a medieval setting, where personal emotions somehow outweigh political logic. It’s this clash between medieval-style fantasy and modern storytelling that makes the whole conflict feel inconsistent as if the world’s rules and the characters’ behavior don’t belong to the same era.

In the first place, did we ever have a king in medieval Europe who named his daughter heir to replace his brother bc of the insult thing, then remarried, then had three sons, then kept her as heir, then spat on the Great Council of 101 and never summoned a new one to back his daughter w// fresh legitimacy after having three sons? Not to mention Viserys never required ALL the lords to swear oaths of loyalty to Rhaenyra, he made only HALF the lords swear oaths 24 years ago when Rhaenyra was just a child and named it a day, then he never renewed or reinforced those oaths again. If you compare it to the real-life historical basis, the succession crisis between Empress Matilda and Stephen falls apart. In reality, even w// oaths sworn multiple times to Matilda, Stephen still took the throne. That’s much closer to how it should have played out w// Aegon II. Monarchs “appointing” successors doesn’t hold much weight in a feudal system. Historically, rulers like Roman emperors crowned their heirs before death to avoid this exact problem. GRRM could’ve leaned into that complexity, but instead he framed it as a straightforward son vs. daughter conflict, which oversimplifies the real dynamics and makes it hard to buy why so many would risk everything for Rhaenyra’s claim.

If Martin truly wanted to reflect the reality and the patriarchy of The Anarchy, the opposition should not have been a younger legitimate son, which makes Rhaenyra’s claim challenged by another stronger claim, but a cousin, uncle, or other collateral male line, which would have forced the misogyny front and center, as in Matilda’s case. By making Rhaenyra the elder sibling, the narrative implies her claim is better bc she came first, but in any REAL medieval monarchy w// male-preference succession, she would be naturally displaced by a later-born male.

Not only did no real-world monarchy practice absolute primogeniture before the 1980s, but even male-preference primogeniture was fraught and inconsistent. In England, women could inherit only when no legitimate male remained:

“There are many different inheritance codes and traditions. In Kent the dominant inheritance code was ‘gavelkind,’ by which all sons inherited equally. However, the predominant inheritance rule throughout the rest of England in the medieval period and afterwards was male-preference primogeniture, whereby estates passed in total to the eldest son. In both these codes women could inherit, but only if they had no brothers. Since 1925, modern inheritance law in the United Kingdom has treated daughters the same as sons. Despite this, male-preference primogeniture was still in use by our own Royal Family to govern who inherited the throne until the early 21st century. The daughters of a prince would take the throne ahead of the children of a princess, even if the princess was older. Complete exclusion of females from succession is a well-known part of the ‘Salic Law,’ but is not part of the British law code. Indeed, England had a female ruler in 1141 when Matilda (1102-1167), the only surviving child of King Henry I, briefly deposed her cousin Stephen of Blois. He had taken the throne despite having sworn to uphold her succession.”

Also are we supposed to believe that Rhaenyra a woman in a rigidly patriarchal society could have three openly illegitimate children and not only face no punishment, but still expect everyone to support her claim to the throne? In any real feudal system, that would have been political suicide. A woman’s sexual reputation directly affected her political legitimacy, because her children were the future heirs. If the children were suspected to be illegitimate, then her entire bloodline became questionable. That meant instability, wars, and succession crises exactly the thing feudal lords wanted to avoid. Look at what happened to Jaehaerys’s daughters: They were punished for having extramarital sex. And none of them were heirs to the throne. They were just royal princesses yet even they couldn’t get away with anything. So imagine how much worse it would be for the heir to have three children who look nothing like her husband.

In a real medieval setting:

• Her marriage would be annulled.

• Her children would be declared illegitimate.

• Her claim would collapse instantly.

• The lords would abandon her because her line would appear “unsafe.”

• And yes she would probably be removed, imprisoned, or quietly killed, because the threat to the succession would be seen as too dangerous.

The idea that Rhaenyra could do this openly, for years, with no consequences, and still expect everyone to support her claim, is... unrealistic. Even in-universe, Fire & Blood shows how ridiculous it is everyone knew, everyone whispered, and half the realm doubted her sons’ right to inherit. But if Westeros operated anything like real feudal Europe? Rhaenyra’s claim would never have survived three illegitimate heirs. It would’ve been over before the Dance even began.

One of the most frustrating things about Rhaenyra is how often she acts in denial about the very real threats around her. She’s supposed to be the heir to the Iron Throne, a trained political player who has ruled Dragonstone and sat in her father Viserys’s council. Shes supposed to be smart, experienced, and deeply aware of court politics so why, suddenly, does she behave like the dangers posed by her half-brothers don’t even exist??? From the moment Aegon and his siblings are born, any reasonable person in her position would immediately recognize the threat. In a feudal, patriarchal society, male heirs automatically overshadow a female claimant. Yet Rhaenyra seems to act as if her claim is untouchable. She doesn’t reinforce her position or secure the loyalty of her allies. In real medieval-style politics or even in realistic character logic this is insanity. Ignoring such obvious risks is not clever strategy; it’s a plot convenience.

This denial makes her decisions feel disconnected from her world. The reader knows that threats exist, the lords are fickle, and her claim is inherently vulnerable, but Rhaenyra acts as if none of that matters. It isn’t just frustrating it’s unrealistic. Even someone with limited political savvy would take steps to secure their position. Contrast this with Alicent Hightower. From the moment her sons are born, she recognizes their potential to threaten Rhaenyra. She acts strategically, plans ahead, and behaves consistently with the rules of her world. Even if readers dislike her, her behavior is believable. She understands the stakes, and she navigates them logically. That’s why, in terms of realistic writing, Alicent is far stronger as a character than Rhaenyra.

You see the same realism in Catelyn Stark. The moment Catelyn realizes Jon Snow could undermine her children’s legitimacy and inheritance, she becomes wary and resentful. Whether readers agree with her or not, this reaction fits the rules of a medieval world where bastards create political instability. She understands the stakes and behaves accordingly.

Even Cersei Lannister understood the danger of rumors about her children’s parentage, and she handled the bastardy issue far better than Rhaenyra ever did. Rhaenyra acted almost as if none of the rules applied to her. Harwin Strong was constantly around her children, everyone at court openly whispered about their real father, and Rhaenyra still expected no consequences.

Rhaenyra’s denial doesn’t make her tragic it makes her unbelievable. GRRM could have shown her as cautious, calculating, or at least partially aware of the risks. Instead, she often acts as if the political world she’s part of doesn’t exist. Even in a world full of epic stuff, characters need to act like real humans. They need consistent motives, reactions that make sense, and awareness of the world they live in. When they don’t, all the tension in the dragons, wars, and politics gets wiped out bc the reader is just thinking, “why tf isn’t she doing the obvious thing?”

Rhaenyra is written UNREALISTICALLY having BASTARDS so openly and facing basically NO REAL CONSEQUENCES. In a world where women get KILLED or CAST OUT for less, she gets PROTECTED and PRAISED. It doesn’t fit the LOGIC of Westeros, bc even w// her Targaryen blood and her father’s love, no woman could’ve gotten away w// that. She’s written like a MODERN idea of female freedom dropped into a MEDIEVAL world and that’s why she feels so out of place next to someone like Alicent, who actually acts the way a woman would in that system.

Alicent feels TOO REAL, and ppl HATE in fiction what they recognize as PAINFULLY HUMAN. They HATE seeing how MEDIEVAL women actually acted how our HISTORY really was, how women’s lives were shaped by DUTY, FEAR, and SURVIVAL rather than FREEDOM. people prefer the ILLUSION of EMPOWERMENT and MODERN ideals projected onto the past bc it’s more COMFORTABLE. They LOVE to ROMANTICIZE history, not CONFRONT it. Alicent reminds them of the REALITY they’d rather IGNORE.

Corlys saying “history remembers names, not blood” is BULLSHIT. Everything in their society is built on bloodlines inheritance, marriage, legitimacy, claims to land, claims to titles, even claims to the Iron Throne.

Cersei killed Robert’s bastards because they have his blood in a way that pose a threat to her children’s claim since they don’t have his blood. Any child with Robert’s blood could challenge her kids, so she acted ruthlessly to protect their position. Robert Baratheon did claim the Iron Throne in part because he had Targaryen blood, so bloodlines absolutely mattered. The Targaryens and Velaryons were obsessed with “pure blood,” breeding within the family to maintain their Valyrian heritage.

If blood truly didn’t matter in Westeros, then:

The Targaryens would never have married brother to sister.

Robert Baratheon couldn’t use his Targaryen blood to justify taking the throne.

Cersei killing Robert’s bastards would be pointless.

The entire debate over bastardy, legitimacy, and inheritance wouldn’t exist. But all of Westeros is built on bloodlines. Saying “blood doesn’t matter” in this world is like saying “water isn’t wet” it goes against the whole structure of their society.

As a proud member of the Catelyn Stark Defense Squad, I need to object to the idea that Catelyn requires punishment for her fraught relationship with Jon. Their society pits the rights of women (and their children) against bastard children in order to protect the property and sexual liberty of men. Her fears were proven right by Robb and Stannis. It was never about Jon as a person, only ever about the threat to her children's rights that he represented.

And in that context, the idea that he's actually Lyanna's son (still behind her kids in the line of succession in a way no legitimizing could ever change) and defended Sansa's right to inherit and, you know, would actually love and protect Sansa? She would be on board!!

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

It requires that the noble parent (usually the father) acknowledges the child as theirs.

He missed his true brothers;

Little Rickon, bright eyes shining as he begged for a sweet;

Robb, his rival and best friend and constant companion;

Bran, stubborn and curious, always wanting to follow and join in whatever Jon and Robb were doing.

He missed the girls too, even Sansa, who never called him anything but “my half brother” since she was old enough to understand what bastard meant.

And Arya…he missed her even more than Robb, skinny little thing that she was, all scraped knees and tangled hair and torn clothes, so fierce and willful.

Arya never seemed to fit, no more than he had…yet she could always make Jon smile.

storm; cool as fuck.

flowers; cute as fuck.

rivers; normal but still invokes a vibe of strength and fortitude.

snow; it’s the least boring of all the remaining nature-related names.

stone; astonishingly normal. neither the best nor the worst.

pyke; you know, i never even knew this was a bastard name. but it’s literally just the name of an island. whatever.

sand; dorne is cool but i hate sand. they deserve better.

hill; this is also a very normal-sounding name but in the most boring way possible.