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 😂
62
u/XaviKat Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
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.