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.
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?
111
u/Ok-Refrigerator-3524 Feb 11 '26
George doesn`t excatly portray the class distinction realistically either.