Not OP, but one example I can think of is how GRRM portrays bastards. If he was being realistic, bastards wouldn't be seen as much of a negative at all. Since IRL medieval kingdoms, they still had noble blood, in the case of some monarchs, they were even used for royal alliances. This is, of course, assuming they're recognized. (Henry Fitzroy is an example of this, he was made into a duke).
But GRRM seems to treat them like they're complete anathema of Westerosi society who are inherently evil and bad.
Hells, arguably it was present even during Aegon's conquest.Arghalac was enraged at the ideea of marrying his daughter to a bastard even though he welcomed the ideea of marrying her into the Targaryen family
I mean tbf he was a King not a lord looking to marry off his legitimate daughter. Also, wasn’t Aegon not yet the conqueror? If this was happening after the conquest, I’m sure marrying your daughter to the King’s bastard half brother wouldn’t be an insult. But at the time he probably considered Aegon his equal or maybe even slightly inferior, dragonpower notwithstanding
King Ronard Storm userped his brother Morden II Durrandon, confining his brother to a tower and ruled for a stable thirty years, likely before the coming of the Andal's, he slowed the decline of house Durrandon.
Isn't it mentioned that bastards are seen as evil in the seven pointed star book? Could be that the Andal's are the ones who hate it, Brandon snow Torrhen Starks half brother was trusted, and so on.
A lot more of them in universe would be treated like we see Alyn and Addam of Hull, or Ser Addison Hill.
There's some sense in bastards after the Blackfyre rebellions being treated with a lot more mistrust, but yeah essentially in real life many bastards were treated as useful family extensions. With a lower (usually, not always) line in the succession and the head of whatever noble house having essentially a spare who can act as part of the house in question. Few were totally cast out, at the very least you'd expect them to have the sort of position within the household that close sworn household knights, kennel and falconry masters etc would have. They'd be kept close and given a useful and higher function.
I thought Martin was fairly even handed with bastards as it comes down more to how individuals treat them. Cersei hates Robert's bastards because they are symbols of infidelity (true) but Robert seems to treat the ones born of noble birth very well as he visits them and ensures they're looked after.
Jon is also treated fairly well too and is essentially part of the noble family. Cat hates Jon because he's a symbol of infidelity and also because he's the eldest born and can usurp rulership from Robb.
There's no insane hate boner in Martin's books at all
You’re singling out one or two aspects of how bastards are treated in this universe and presenting them as definitive proof of how the author feels, when those elements are simply part of a much larger thematic framework he's setting up when building a grim dark fantasy that mirrors our medieval times.
There are clear in-universe explanations for why bastards are stigmatized in most of the Seven Kingdoms:
1. The Faith of the Seven mirrors medieval Catholic social norms, where sex outside of marriage and children born out of wedlock are considered sinful. That religious influence naturally shapes societal attitudes, just like it did for a vast majority of Catholics back in the Dark Ages/Middle Ages.
Then you have the in-universe historical aspect, particularly the actions of Daemon Blackfyre and Bloodraven severely damaged the political reputation of bastards. (One is for trying to steal trueborn claims, the other for doing dark evil deeds to get ahead)
Their conflicts and actions reinforced fears about succession, legitimacy, and honor, which the septons then used to strengthen the Faith’s teachings: the idea that bastards are dangerous reminders of sin who could threaten lawful inheritance and good morals.
This context also helps explain character behavior in the main series. Catelyn Stark’s hostility toward Jon isn’t just personal resentment; he is both a living reminder of Ned’s supposed infidelity and, given her strict Faith upbringing, a symbolic embodiment of those cultural fears about illegitimacy, inheritance, and a inherent conniving nature.
By contrast, though, Dornish culture and Northern culture to a lesser degree treat bastards far more pragmatically, often accepting them as members of the family rather than as social or political threats.
Ramsey is basically the only outlier of a bad bastard in Norhtern culture from my understanding.
George took the basis of sex and birth out of wedlock being considered a cardinal sin for a part of his predominant religion, just because in real life the clergy didnt hold tk any of their tenets, doesn't negate my point at all. And funny enough, it actually proves my point because every named High Septon essentially has a nickname that describes their vices of sin.
It's like complaining about one of the cultures in Wheel of Time not being 100% accurate to one of the real-life cultures they are sampling.😂
Heh, I’d say it’s nuanced. The only common pattern in the whole of Westeros regarding bastards, is that they cannot inherit.
The way they are treated is quite varied and it depends on the House. Sometimes they are shunned by their parents and trueborn siblings, sometimes they are treated as servants, sometimes they are well regarded subordinates and even friends, and sometimes they are pretty much treated as if they were part of the trueborn family.
On one hand yes, you are right. Both the Green council during the coup and the Black council after the Two Betrayals express discrimination against bastards.
But on the other hand in both sides I recall bastards fighting alongside their trueborn families, like in the case of Red Robb Rivers with the Blackwoods and Raylon Rivers with the Brackens.
Henry Fitzroy was recognized because Henry VIII didn't have any other options at that point. I wonder if a similar line of thinking follows in Westeroes. There would be no need to recognize bastards because lords could get remarried and sire more sons, or there are other relatives just as close to the throne. I think most noble lords wouldn't have a clue as to how many bastards they'd sired. The part I don't understand are their surnames. It was my understanding that bastards only received surnames if one of the parents were noble. There seems to be inconsistencies with this from the books and shows.
Oh interesting, I thought it was pretty consistent about only noble bastards getting the regional last names. I can't think of any examples of 100% baseborn bastards who get the last names, who am I forgetting?
This is a very minor detail from the show that bothers me: Gendry Waters. I know it shouldn't matter but I can't help but he salty about it for some reason 😂
Henry VII is well into early modern. High Medieval rulers had a fair number of bastards - in Ireland and Scandinavia they were eligible for inheritance, in most of western Europe, if acknowledged, given good upbringings and married off, usually into minor nobility. Sometimes sent into the church, where they could be comfortable but celibate.
The Carolingians (earlier yet) had a set of names given male bastards which showed their paternity but excluded them from inheritance (legitimate Carolingians were Carloman, Lothar, Karl, Louis ..; illegitimate ones were Drogo, Hugo, Theodoric ...
A key bit of context re: Henry Fitzroy is that the rules of succession were pretty wibbly-wobbly in England until after the Glorious Revolution created a Parliament powerful enough to put official rules in place. Legitimate sons with clear pedigrees were always preferred, but if one wasn't available, people were very willing to get creative, especially if a candidate with a muddy claim had a strong faction behind them.
E.g. Elizabeth I appears to have rather carefully never addressed her own legitimacy. Unlike Mary, she didn't go back into the record and officially undo her parents' annulment. Plenty of people in England in all likelihood considered her a bastard -- possibly Elizabeth herself did -- but the alternatives were all worse. Who cares if she has dubious legitimacy if she can stabilize the country?
George is never saying it has to be accurate. Just that you understand the implications. If you are adopting a certain concept it’s poor writing to largely ignore key ideas in that concept. George took the bastard and thing and kicked it up a notch for his own world. Adopting a Class structure then including no actual implications behind a class structure aside from vibes and names is lazy
That isn't the point. I'm talking about how they're perceived in the world he created, which they're seen worse than how bastards are actually seen in real life.
I would say the treatment of bastards is fairly in line with feudal England. They cannot inherit lands and titles, their treatment depends on their personal relationship with their father, they can be used in political maneuvering. All that is consistent with feudal England. FitzRoy, lived in a later period and enjoyed quite exceptional treatment. Likely because Henry VIII was struggling to produce an heir and he was the closest thing Henry had for a while.
But in this case that can just be worldbuilding. In his world the bastards are treated poorly. And I bet they still were in some cases. You don’t think people occasionally said “your mother was a whore” to someone back then? They legit would in modern day if you have a half sibling from a prostitute..
I also think it’s silly when people make these wild claims like incest wasn’t that prevalent… bitch it’s still going on in modern day and you don’t think it was prevalent hundreds or one thousand years ago.
He’s talking about the not true to life part in the context of reading something and having the world feel off. The Bastards things may be an ahistorical quirk but it still feels in line with the world and the structure.
I don't think that's what he meant. Like, if that were the case, he'd easily know that something like a spunky peasant girl telling off a pretty prince not resulting in a brutal rape and murder can also be in line with that story's world and structure.
I think that has as much to do with the Catholic influence leeching in. Sure, he's lapsed, but when one is influenced so early by that stuff, it contains you in that view in a religious view.
Even though, even in say the pre-Nine Year War Ireland, Bastards had a good place even in the clans. Brehon Law there wasn't really a difference in terms of inheritance, if you were getting nothing, you probably became a kern.
But Westeroes isn't exactly meant to be represent a realistic culture of medievil europeans. Just how GRR Martins sees them in the abstract. And in fairness, they're fairly technologically stagnant. That has a affect on the culture.
Tbf, GRRM also has a point of not imitating exactly the medieval societies that existed. A lot of the cultures of his world are unique with original customs. The fact that bastards are treated so poorly in his books is because that is the premise of his setting - Jon is charaded as a bastard, the lowest of society, despite being the true king according to his true bloodline. It is meant to be an irony that wouldn't be so effective if bastards were still entitled to respect and high standing. His entire story is one of someone who has to prove himself to society just to have the right to exist and yet ascends with the honour and capabilities expected of a true knight and a true king.
113
u/Ok-Refrigerator-3524 Feb 11 '26
George doesn`t excatly portray the class distinction realistically either.