The entire problem with the Dance is that George wrote a medieval setting story that all of the sudden has modern mentality about women. And the show amplified it to a thousand.
- 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
Youâre 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 crownâs 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), Rhaenyraâs 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 couldnât hold the throne and that was in a realm far less patriarchal than Westeros. Stephen, as the son of Henry Iâs 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 wasnât 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? Letâs not forget: Rhaenyra wasnât even politically active. She spent most of her adult life on Dragonstone, surrounded by sycophants and out of touch with the power centers of Kingâs 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 itâs baffling that half the realm supposedly rallied behind her. Nobles in Westeros, like their medieval counterparts, donât die for principles; they fight for self-interest. And âmy queen has three illegitimate kids and wants to rewrite succession law for herselfâ 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 âdragon logic,â 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 donât support her claim is because itâs fundamentally unrealistic. From a medieval and Westerosi political standpoint, it could never have worked.
Alicent Is the Only Character Acting Realistically, While Viserys and Rhaenyraâs 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, whoâs 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. Itâs this clash between medieval-style fantasy and modern storytelling that makes the whole conflict feel inconsistent as if the worldâs rules and the charactersâ behavior donât 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. Thatâs much closer to how it should have played out w// Aegon II. Monarchs âappointingâ successors doesnât hold much weight in a feudal system. Historically, rulers like Roman emperors crowned their heirs before death to avoid this exact problem. GRRM couldâve 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 Rhaenyraâs 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 Rhaenyraâs 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 Matildaâs 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:
âThere are many different inheritance codes and traditions. In Kent the dominant inheritance code was âgavelkind,â 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 âSalic Law,â 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.â
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 womanâs 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 Jaehaerysâs 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 couldnât 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 âunsafe.â
⢠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 sonsâ right to inherit. But if Westeros operated anything like real feudal Europe? Rhaenyraâs claim would never have survived three illegitimate heirs. It wouldâve 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. Sheâs supposed to be the heir to the Iron Throne, a trained political player who has ruled Dragonstone and sat in her father Viserysâs 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 donât 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 doesnât 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; itâs 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 isnât just frustrating itâs 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. Thatâs 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 childrenâs 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 childrenâs 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.
Rhaenyraâs denial doesnât 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 sheâs part of doesnât 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 donât, all the tension in the dragons, wars, and politics gets wiped out bc the reader is just thinking, âwhy tf isnât she doing the obvious thing?â
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 doesnât fit the LOGIC of Westeros, bc even w// her Targaryen blood and her fatherâs love, no woman couldâve gotten away w// that. Sheâs written like a MODERN idea of female freedom dropped into a MEDIEVAL world and thatâs 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 womenâs 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 itâs more COMFORTABLE. They LOVE to ROMANTICIZE history, not CONFRONT it. Alicent reminds them of the REALITY theyâd rather IGNORE.
Corlys saying âhistory remembers names, not bloodâ 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 Robertâs bastards because they have his blood in a way that pose a threat to her childrenâs claim since they donât have his blood. Any child with Robertâs 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 âpure blood,â breeding within the family to maintain their Valyrian heritage.
If blood truly didnât matter in Westeros, then:
The Targaryens would never have married brother to sister.
Robert Baratheon couldnât use his Targaryen blood to justify taking the throne.
Cersei killing Robertâs bastards would be pointless.
The entire debate over bastardy, legitimacy, and inheritance wouldnât exist. But all of Westeros is built on bloodlines. Saying âblood doesnât matterâ in this world is like saying âwater isnât wetâ it goes against the whole structure of their society.
The characters behave like modern people stuck in a medieval setting.
origamiaround
kianamaiart
yousharknotpass
blakekathryn
snowghoul
ellievsbear
