It was EXPECTED and NORMAL for noble women to want their children to inherit.
Disclaimer: This is a long, repetitive blog post aiming to clarify and remind readers that, in feudal times, it was normal for noblewomen to want their children especially sons to inherit. This wasn’t selfish; it was part of their expected role and tied to their security and social status.
A.
How feudal marriage works? Marriage Was a Binding Contract, Not Romance.
A feudal contract between a king and a noblewoman he marries is basically an understanding between their families about what the marriage is for. The king expects children, usually sons, to continue his line, and the woman’s family expects her children to inherit so their house stays powerful. In return, the woman gets status, protection, and sometimes land or wealth. It’s not about love; it’s about politics, alliances, and making sure both families benefit. The agreement is unwritten, based on tradition and what everyone knows they are supposed to get from the marriage.
This is why Corlys offered his daughter Laena as a bride to Viserys because securing a male heir was crucial. Corlys likely had enough leverage to insist on this. Tywin Lannister did not marry off his daughter to the king to make her a powerless maiden. He married her so that she could be the mother of future kings. That is how feudal marriage works.
Though Princess Rhaenyra had been proclaimed her father’s successor, there were many in the realm, at court and beyond it, who still hoped that Viserys might father a male heir, for the Young King was not yet thirty. Grand Maester Runciter was the first to urge His Grace to remarry, even suggesting a suitable choice: the Lady Laena Velaryon, who had just turned twelve.
What did House Hightower expect Viserys wanted when they gave him their daughter? They watched this man spend years obsessing over having a son. They saw him get his wife pregnant over and over until she died because he wanted a male heir. They saw him exile his own brother for making a joke about his dead son. So yeah of course they expected another son. And historically Taragryen kings before him named daughters or nieces as “heirs” was usually temporary none of them were placed above a son, just something to hold the place until a boy came along.
Maegor didn’t choose Aerea because he genuinely wanted a woman to rule he only made her a temporary heir until he could produce a son of his own. That had been the pattern for generations. They knew exactly what they were putting Alicent into: a position where her son would almost certainly become the future heir once he existed. Viserys spent years acting like the kind of king who would replace a daughter-heir the moment a son was born… and then decided he was suddenly a feminist icon when it came to Rhaenyra. No one saw that coming not Otto, not Alicent, not the court, not the lords, not the realm.
If Viserys had made it clear from the beginning that he would never replace Rhaenyra, then neither Corlys nor Otto would have pushed their daughters at him in the first place. Why would they? It would’ve been pointless and dangerous. Noble houses don’t gamble their daughters, their alliances, or their reputations on a move that has zero political payoff. They only do it if the outcome is likely and based on everything Viserys had shown up to that point, replacing a daughter with a son was the expected norm.
If Viserys had been consistent and firm: Otto wouldn’t have risked Alicent, Corlys wouldn’t have gambled with Laena while being a child, And no one would’ve set up rival claims that could split the realm. Because doing so would’ve been openly challenging the king’s declared line of succession and that’s how you get treason charges, rebellions, and collapsed houses. The problem wasn’t that these men were evil. The problem was that Viserys was unclear, inconsistent, and sent mixed signals for years.
He acted like a king who wanted a son to inherit…until the one moment he suddenly didn’t.
Anyway Alicent did her duty by having children, and she should have been able to bring her family’s connections and influence into the marriage, but Viserys refused to let her use that power. Her children’s positions weren’t supported, so her influence was blocked even though she followed her role as queen and mother. Ignoring or blocking them, like Viserys did with Alicent’s kids, was unusual and politically risky because it weakens the queen, angers powerful families, and creates tensions in the succession.
“Motherhood was clearly important to medieval society. Consequently, when the queen gave birth, especially to a son, her symbolic capital rose in the eyes of her contemporaries. The birth of an heir was obviously important in a political system and society based on primogeniture… Giving birth may have served as a coming of age for the queen. Once she provided an heir, she had earned her symbolic capital. After the birth of Prince Edward of Windsor, Edward II began to rely on Isabella as a mediator in the negotiations with the barons and in the conflict that followed Gaveston’s execution… On an international level, she was involved in Anglo-French negotiations over Gascony… The birth of Edward of Windsor in 1312 may have allowed the queen to be seriously considered as a key political figure by 1313, and motherhood marked this coming of age.”—Queen Consort, Queen Mother: The Power and Authority of Fourteenth-Century Plantagenet Queens'
For most of human history, marriage wasn’t about love it was a formal contract. Noblewomen were expected to have children (ideally sons), run the household, and protect their family’s line. In return, they were promised security, protection, and the hope that their sons would inherit, which ensured their own future influence and stability. Viserys denying her sons’ claims effectively stripped Alicent of the very power she was culturally and socially entitled to. Her marriage to Viserys I was meant to secure her family’s influence and ensure her sons’ succession to the throne. When Viserys failed to prioritize her sons’ claims, he effectively denied her the power and security.
Lots of English & French queens had sons heirs, like Eleanor of Aquitaine, Eleanor of Castile, Philippa of Hainault, Elizabeth of York, Isabeau of Bavaria, & Marie of Anjou. These women had at least one son, so their position was safe. Some queens had no kids at all, like Eleanor of Austria, Louise of Lorraine-Vaudemont, Anne of Bohemia, & Catherine of Braganza. Others had kids but no sons.
Eleanor of Aquitaine is a good example of both sides. W/ Louis VII of France, she had 2 daughters. Women couldn’t inherit the French throne, and maybe Louis just got tired of her. Their marriage was annulled. Then Eleanor married Henry of Anjou & had 10 kids, 5 boys, which made her position solid.
Louise of Lorraine-Vaudemont is a sad case. Her husband Henri III loved her & they probably had normal relations, but maybe health issues kept her from having kids. This hurt her politically bc France was unstable then. Anne of Bohemia had a similar situation. Her husband Richard II may have been bisexual or celibate, & Anne died young.
Eleanor of Austria wasn’t treated well by her husband François I. They didn’t have many conjugal visits, which may have caused her not to have kids. François already had 2 sons from his previous marriage, so it wasn’t a huge deal. She had a daughter from her previous marriage to the king of Portugal & didn’t remarry after François died.
Anne Boleyn had kids & was pregnant several times but couldn’t have a surviving son, which eventually cost her life. Catherine of Braganza had multiple pregnancies but never carried to full term, probably for health reasons. This was a big disappointment & hurt her status as queen. Still, her husband Charles II treated her kindly during each pregnancy & didn’t blame her. Being childless & Catholic in a Protestant country made her weak politically, but Charles protected her, which was notable.
Alicent Hightower is basically the exception.
She had multiple sons the heirs the Targaryen line needed so by every rule of feudal custom, she should’ve been secure and powerful. But bc Viserys I didn’t prioritize her sons’ claims over Rhaenyra, Alicent didn’t get the power she culturally and socially expected. Unlike other queens, her position was undermined not bc she failed to produce heirs, but bc the king ignored what her family and marriage contract assumed she would get. This makes her case unusual in medieval/feudal terms.
A dower was the medieval way to make sure a woman had money, land, and a secure home if she outlived her husband. But Viserys never gave Alicent anything like that.
A king’s wife still got a dower. Even though he was the ruler, he was still expected to follow the same marriage customs as other nobles. So when a queen married a king, it was normal for her to receive: her son inherited, lands, income, castles or estates…that she would control if she outlived him. This was her safety net her widow’s portion.
A dowager is a widow (who may receive her dower from her late husband). Queen Alicent became a dowager queen but, funny enough, she didn’t actually receive any dower. Basically, she had the title but none of the benefits.
This is why Queen Alysanne passed a “Widow’s Law” to protect widows, who were often left with nothing after their husbands’ deaths. The law didn’t give them dowers outright, but it legally required the heir of the widow’s husband to maintain her living standards keeping her in the same comfort she had before her husband died and prevented the heir from evicting her from their castle.
• Eleanor of Aquitaine received huge dower lands from Henry II.
• Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves received manors and income after Henry VIII.
Queens were NEVER supposed to be left with nothing. That would be seen as an insult to her, her children, and her entire house.
Matilda married Emperor Henry V in Germany, and she didn’t have any kids with him. She knew her entire power and future depended on producing an heir, so she was desperate to have children.
“Administratively speaking, having the emperor in Germany and the empress acting on his behalf in Italy worked well. Personally and dynastically, however, it was less than ideal as it precluded the possibility of producing an heir. … After a year of exercising authority in Italy she returned to Germany in the autumn of 1119. … Still no pregnancy resulted. Matilda was now seventeen, so the excuse of extreme youth was wearing thin. The usual custom in a childless marriage was to blame the wife for being ‘barren’, and in this case the accusation seemed logical: although Matilda would later go on to have three sons with her second husband, nobody could have predicted that in Germany in 1119, and she remained the childless wife of a man who had already fathered at least one child … Either way, no child resulted…“As a childless widow (and one now under the rule of a king less favourably disposed towards her, at that) Matilda’s options were limited. She could have retired to a convent”—MEQW
Even though she did not bear children during their marriage, Henry left her dower lands and property upon his death (but she actually gave them up):
Henry’s condition deteriorated swiftly. He died on 23 May 1125, with Matilda at his bedside. […] Henry placed the imperial insignia in Matilda’s hands, entrusting them to her until a new king could be elected – and an election there would undoubtedly be, for their eleven- year marriage had produced no children […] She could withdraw to her dower lands and live in seclusion as a widow, but that would have held no appeal to a young woman of energy and ambition. It therefore appeared that the only way to go forward was to go back: late in 1125 Matilda resigned her dower lands in Germany, handed over the imperial insignia to the archbishop of Mainz and made her way to Normandy.”—MEQW
Alicent did everything right. She gave Viserys four children, including three sons, which should have guaranteed her safety and influence. But unlike Matilda who even didn’t have children, Alicent wasn’t protected, her children weren’t automatically secured, and bc of this she will end up powerless after her husband’s death so she was forced to fight for her rights.
That’s why Alicent’s situation is so strange and so unfair. She did what every queen was supposed to do: she gave Viserys several healthy sons. In a normal feudal marriage, that would guarantee her safety after his death, guarantee her sons’ rights, and guarantee lands or income for her widowhood. But Viserys left her with none of the protections or respect other queens received. Instead of securing her future and her children’s future, he basically left her exposed.
B.
Queens Were Not Powerless or Obliged to Blind Obedience
It is misogynistic deeply so to say a woman whose body, fertility, and family were used for a political marriage should “just obey” and expect nothing in return. To deny her ALL of that and then say she should “shut up and obey” is basically saying: “Your body belongs to the king, your children belong to the king, you get nothing, and you should be grateful.”
That isn’t just misogyny it completely ignores how medieval marriage actually worked. Even in real history, which was patriarchal as hell, queens and noblewomen still received land, money, political security, and protection for themselves through their children’s inheritance. That was the whole point of the marriage system: if a woman gave the king heirs, especially sons, her position was supposed to be secure.
A queen can’t just “always obey” the king, bc her children’s future and inheritance are at stake. Even if the king says one thing, she has to protect her kids. When he ignores them, like Viserys did with Alicent’s children, it leads to fights and instability.
While the queen consort was theoretically subordinate to her husband within the feudal hierarchy, in practice her responsibilities as mother of the king’s legitimate heirs granted her a sphere of influence that often operated parallel to, or even in tension with, royal authority. Medieval political culture recognized the queen’s unique role as guardian of dynastic continuity, and it was widely understood that a mother’s duty to protect her children could supersede expectations of wifely obedience. Many Medieval queens Isabella, Eleanor, Margaret of Anjou, Philippa all defied their husbands when their children’s futures were threatened. Far from being mere ornaments, they acted as negotiators, diplomats, and power brokers precisely because the stability of the realm depended upon their offspring. Thus, it is incorrect to suggest that the queen had no right to contest policies or decisions affecting her children.
if Viserys officially named Mushroom as his heir, it still wouldn’t automatically make everyone including his wife and legitimate children just sit back and obey. In a feudal system, succession isn’t only about the king’s word; it depends on the support of the lords, the law, and political precedent. Even if the king says “this is my heir,” rival claimants (like Alicent’s children, Daemon and rhaenyra etc…) could present their cases, citing custom, law, or precedent. The lords, magistrates, or masters of law would then weigh the evidence. Succession is especially fragile bc it happens after the king’s death, and disputed claims can easily trigger rebellion or civil war. So naming Mushroom heir doesn’t automatically force obedience.
There’s NO king who remarried, had legitimate sons by his second wife, and then ignored them in favor of a daughter in a way that mirrors Viserys / Alicent’s situation. That’s exactly why Alicent and her faction had to act if she “obeyed” blindly, her children would have no protection.
Rhaenyra herself didn’t obey her father, the king. She broke the agreement that Daemon should be kept away from the throne the very reason she was named heir in the first place. Rhaenyra’s “claim” exists only because Daemon was disinherited he was the real obstacle to the throne. Once Viserys has legitimate sons with Alicent, any legal or traditional argument for Rhaenyra’s succession is dead. By refusing to acknowledge or act on this, Viserys isn’t just ignoring law and precedent; he’s insulting Alicent, her family (the Hightowers), and undermining her position as queen. Meanwhile, Rhaenyra’s own choices her relationships Daemon, and Harwin Strong show she isn’t exactly committed to protecting her inheritance either.
“On no account can Prince Daemon be allowed to ascend to the Iron Throne,” the Hand wrote his brother, Lord of Oldtown. “He would be a second Maegor the Cruel, or worse.” It was Ser Otto’s wish (then) that Princess Rhaenyra succeed her father. “Better the Realm’s Delight than Lord Flea Bottom,” he wrote. Nor was he alone in his opinion. […] the king moved swiftly to resolve the long-simmering issue of the succession. Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, Viserys declared his daughter, Rhaenyra, to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to the Realm’s Delight“
In the books, Viserys is clearly upset by her decision, which shows she defied his authority.
that Princess Rhaenyra had remarried, taking to husband her uncle, Daemon Targaryen. The princess was twenty-three, Prince Daemon thirty-nine. King, court, and commons were all outraged by the news. Neither Daemon’s wife nor Rhaenyra’s husband had been dead even half a year; to wed again so soon was an insult to their memories, His Grace declared angrily. The marriage had been performed on Dragonstone, suddenly and secretly. Septon Eustace claims that Rhaenyra knew her father would never approve of the match, so she wed in haste to make certain he could not prevent the marriage
Rhaenyra’s marriage was done in secret, going against the king’s wishes, so she didn’t obey him either. So it’s not just Alicent who defies the king Rhaenyra did too. And Alicent’s “disobedience” is about protecting her children and their future, which is normal in a feudal system. She isn’t just breaking rules for herself; she’s making sure her kids keep their power. By the time of Aegon II’s birth, Rhaenyra had no legal claim to the Iron Throne. She was only named heir after Aemma Arryn’s death to prevent Daemon from ascending. Male-preference primogeniture was already well established in Westeros by this time, meaning daughters could inherit only if there were no sons. With Alicent having three sons, Rhaenyra’s claim should have been secondary. Viserys’ decision to name her heir despite his own sons shows ignorance of the law and poor governance.
Viserys made things worse. He didn’t secure Rhaenyra’s claim legally or politically he never made the lords renew their oaths, issued no laws, and didn’t clarify the line of succession. By favoring Rhaenyra over his sons, he insulted Alicent and the Hightower family and left his own heirs in danger. Viserys’ actions show he wasn’t just weak or kind he was insecure and controlling. He treated Alicent’s children like they weren’t really his, called them “her blood,” Meanwhile, he used his power to manipulate marriages and force Rhaenyra into plans that benefited him, not the realm.
A king ignoring or bypassing a queen’s children was an enormous political insult.
So if a king refuses to recognize the children she produced… He is not merely being “mean” or “distant.” He is committing one of the deepest political betrayals possible in that system. Because he is: Undermining her symbolic capital, the legitimacy of the sons she produced, Publicly devaluing her core function, Removing the source of her political agency, threatening the stability of her family, her lineage, and her security, Breaking the implicit social contract between king and queen.
Viserys treated his queens and children like tools, not people. He forced his first wife into endless pregnancies just to produce a son, then brought in another young girl expecting the same. When Alicent finally delivers legitimate male heirs, he basically ignores them politically no inheritance, no lands, no strategic marriages, no real power. Of course they resent him! Of course there’s pushback! a king who sidelines his own heirs invites resistance, because succession IS everything. You can’t expect loyalty if you deny your children their rightful standing. It’s not surprising at all that the Greens rise up they’re reacting to blatant mismanagement of power and inheritance.
Saying “the king has the final word” doesn’t justify what Viserys did. Yes, the king has final authority but with that authority comes responsibility to follow established law and custom. A monarch who abuses that authority creates instability. And that’s exactly what Viserys did. Aerys II word might’ve been “the final/law word” in theory, but when his madness destroyed trust and loyalty, his laws meant nothing. Power in Westeros isn’t about crowns or titles it’s about who other men are willing to fight and die for. Lords like Robert Baratheon, Eddard Stark, Jon Arryn, and Hoster Tully rose up not bc they didn’t know Aerys was the “law,” but bc in Westeros, law doesn’t matter if the ruler loses his subjects’ loyalty. Was Ned and Robert going against the ‘law’ sure, but it didn’t matter. Aerys’ rule was so disastrous that he lost the support of the Lords. Some stayed with him out of fear or loyalty to his son, but in the end, being the ‘law’ did not protect him. And the same logic applies to Viserys thought he wasn’t nearly as bad as Aerys. His word is only “absolute” while he’s alive to enforce it. When he dies, the laws he ignored, the alliances he damaged, and the loyalty he failed to keep all come crashing down.
C.
Even royal mistresses and bastards could be treated better than an unrecognized queen’s sons
It’s important to remember that things seen as privileges for a queen nice clothes, proper rooms, enough food, and a running household were really just the minimum a king had to provide for anyone under his care, including mistresses or recognized illegitimate children. These basics didn’t give her any real political power. The real difference was having children who were legitimate heirs. Only a queen, as the mother of heirs, had a real reason and recognized right to get involved in who would inherit the throne. So, just because a queen was treated well or had enough to eat, it doesn’t mean she was happy or had political influence; the real power came from her children and her place in the line of succession.
A king had the power to favor a mistress, legitimize her children, grant them titles, lands, and offices, and favor them socially and politically. The notion that “as long as she has clothes and food, she’s fine” is completely laughable. Queens’ lives revolved around the legitimacy of their children and their symbolic capital at court. To strip a queen’s children of their standing was far more than a denial of material comforts it was a public and political disempowerment.
While King Henry provided well for his illegitimate children, he preferred not to do so out of his own coffers. For Robert, his firstborn son, he'd found Amabel Fitz Hamon, daughter of the Lord of Creully, a rich heiress who'd brought Robert the lordship of Glamorgan, the vast Honour of Gloucester. Stephen had recently heard that the king meant to bestow upon Robert, too, the earldom of Gloucester. His was not a jealous nature, but he did begrudge Robert so much good fortune. No man so self-righteous, he thought, deserved an earldom and Amabel and a king's favor, too.
Henry I treated many of his bastards children very well giving them power, lands, and political marriages. While Viserys had legitimate male heirs three sons who could have been positioned to secure their futures. Yet he did nothing to strengthen them. No strategic marriages, no lands, no titles beyond the bare minimum. He rejected Alicent’s proposal to marry Aegon to Rhaenyra, shut it down, saying it is “her blood” denying her role as queen and mother of the king’s heir. He treated her more like a mistress than a queen, undermining both her authority and her children’s security. Robert, one of Henry’s most famous illegitimate sons, was made Earl of Gloucester. Henry arranged a marriage for Robert to Mabel FitzHamon, a wealthy heiress. Aegon, Viserys’s eldest son and legitimate heir, got… a forced marriage to his sister Helaena that gave him ZERO power. No new lands, no independent power, no alliances with other powerful houses. He got nothing to secure his position beyond his birthright, while Henry’s bastard thrived bc his father actively built him up.
Even Alysanne at least tried to handle Daemon by arranging a marriage with an heiress, and even Aegon the Conqueror married his son Maegor to Ceryse Hightower to build influence through her family.
And because Rhaenyra is the official heir, anything Alicent or her kids do to look competent, useful, or ambitious automatically reads as a threat to Rhaenyra’s position. Alicent is stuck in a political trap:
If she does nothing, her kids grow up powerless and unprotected.
If she prepares her sons for anything, people instantly call it treason.
When a king favors one child over another by giving titles, money, or political power he almost always causes tension. History and stories show this again and again: younger kids or children from a second marriage often get nothing and have to find their own way, which can lead to rebellion, civil war, or fights between siblings. Primogeniture (the oldest son inherits everything) helps, but it only works if the king also arranges positions, marriages, and alliances for the other kids. When kings don’t do this like Viserys didn’t for Alicent’s kids it almost always leads to political chaos and instability.
A queen consort’s primary duty was to protect the rights, safety, and future of her legitimate children NOT to meekly obey her husband.
Why do you think Henry I who is a real-life parallel to Viserys remarried in the first place? To get a legitimate male heir. Full stop. That was the entire point. Every royal marriage in his era was a political contract built around producing a lawful son who would secure the dynasty. Henry’s second wife, Adeliza of Louvain, failed to give him a surviving son. And in a feudal monarchy, that meant she had no political weight, no leverage, no future influence. A queen’s power came from being the mother of heirs not from being “the king’s wife.” And that’s exactly why Henry I named Matilda as heir.
Not because he believed in female inheritance.
Not because he thought she’d be a great queen.
Not because he wanted to “set a precedent.”
He named Matilda heir because he had no surviving legitimate sons left. That’s it. If Henry had had even one living, legitimate son from Adeliza, Matilda never would’ve been in the conversation. And if Henry had tried to bypass that son just like Viserys bypasses Alicent’s sons it would have caused instant rebellion, and not rebellion against the chosen heir, but rebellion directly against the king himself for violating the core logic of feudal succession.
“He married again with the intention of fathering another legitimate son, and chose as his bride Adeliza of Leuven. … Of greater importance was that she was a young woman in her early child‑bearing years … who would make Henry an agreeable companion and hopefully bear him a son as soon as possible.”
If Henry’s second wife like Alicent had produced a son and he had gone ahead and ignored him to name Matilda as his heir? There would have been absolute chaos, rebellion, and pushback. That’s the reality of medieval succession: the king can’t just choose “whatever he wants” over a living male heir without consequences.
From HERE: In Henry I’s case, naming his daughter the sole heir meant facing one battle: convincing the realm that a woman could inherit:
“He married again with the intention of fathering another legitimate son … who would hopefully bear him a son as soon as possible … [but] in their fourteen‑year‑long marriage, she bore him no children… After the White Ship disaster … he now had a major problem – there was no obvious heir to the throne of England … In 1126, he gathered his barons … announced Matilda as his heir, and made them all swear their fealty to her.”
In Viserys’ case, however, he faced two battles: persuading the lords that a woman could rule and convincing them that his new sons didn’t matter. This comes across as favoritism, stubbornness, or political blindness. It was a recipe for rebellion, because he was asking the lords to accept not only a precedent-breaking queen but also to disregard the male heirs they naturally saw as the rightful successors all without taking the necessary steps to secure her claim.
Queen Alicent had soon proved to be as fertile as she was pretty. In 107 AC, she bore the king a healthy son, naming him Aegon, after the Conqueror. Two years later, she produced a daughter for the king, Helaena; in 110 AC, she bore him a second son, Aemond, who was said to be half the size of his elder brother, but twice as fierce […] though the queen had given the king not one but two male heirs, Viserys had done nothing to change the order of succession. The Princess of Dragonstone remained his acknowledged heir, with half the lords of Westeros sworn to defend her rights. Those who asked, “What of the ruling of the Great Council of 101?” found their words falling on deaf ears.
Henry I named Matilda heir because he had no surviving sons, so the succession depended entirely on his daughter there was no alternative. His decision was logically tied to the lack of a male heir. With Viserys and Alicent, it’s very different: Alicent bore him multiple sons, fulfilling her duty as queen consort. Yet Viserys refused to change the succession, keeping Rhaenyra as his designated heir despite the existence of male children.
D.
Viserys’ actions absolutely set a dangerous precedent for any future queen consort who wasn’t a Targaryen.
Some Targaryen stans or ethno-supremcists might argue that Alicent had no independent “rights,” as a queen especially since she wasn’t a Targaryen and had no blood relation to Viserys. But by that logic, Alyssa Velaryon, who was also half-Andal, wouldn’t have had the right to fight for her children’s inheritance either. Her kids were half-Valyrian, just like Alicent’s children Half-Hightower.
Viserys’ treatment of Alicent and the Hightowers was like a trash. He referred to her children as “her blood” rather than his own, showing his fixation on Valyrian purity even when it came to his OWN children. The Hightowers were one of the wealthiest, most influential, and loyal families in the realm, yet Viserys treated Alicent with contempt. By dismissing her and her children, he insulted not just her personally but also the precedent of non-Valyrian consorts queens, signaling that only Targaryen or pure Valyrian blood truly mattered.
It tells noble houses they cannot trust royal marriages.
If the king can simply ignore the children of a non-Targaryen queen, then why would any great house risk giving its daughter to a Targaryen king? It makes the political alliance worthless.
It weakens every future queen’s position.
If a queen’s sons can be skipped over just because she isn’t Valyrian, then her role becomes powerless. Bc the queen’s security comes from her children. If that security is stripped away, queens have no reason to trust the throne and every reason to fight for their children. It makes civil war more likely. And When the king refuses to protect his own sons, noble houses will protect them instead even through rebellion. This is exactly what happens with Alicent’s family.
This kind of message would make every noble house feel undervalued and unsafe at court. When a king shows that only “pure” Valyrian blood matters, he weakens the trust that keeps the realm together. Even families that have always been loyal would start to question their place and their future. Viserys calling Alicent’s children “her blood” instead of his own makes it obvious that he cared more about blood purity than about his family or the stability of the kingdom. Because Alicent wasn’t related to him the way Aemma was, he treated her children as if they were less legitimate even though they were his trueborn sons. For any great lord, marrying a daughter to a Targaryen king is supposed to be one of the highest honors. It should secure the family’s status for generations. The expectation is simple: the queen and her children will be respected and recognized.
Viserys’ actions set a dangerous precedent for future non-Targaryen consorts. If a king could ignore or disinherit the children of a non-Valyrian queen without consequence, it would teach every future consort that she had no authority over her own sons. In effect, queens who were not Targaryen would have almost no real power, their political influence entirely dependent on whether the king chose to recognize her children. This precedent could destabilize the realm and lead to rebellion or civil war, as powerful families sought to secure their heirs by any means necessary.
Alicent really is an exception in Targaryen history. She is the only queen consort whose children were openly pushed aside, ignored, and treated as if they didn’t matter. No queen before her whether she was Targaryen, Velaryon, or from any other noble house was treated this way.
• No queen consort in Targaryen history had her eldest son pushed aside in favor of a daughter.
• No queen had her sons treated like an inconvenience or a threat.
• No queen had her children called “her blood,” as if they weren’t also the king’s blood.
Alicent is the first and only consort who experienced this level of disrespect and dismissal. Every queen before her had her children recognized and protected by the king, because that’s how queens gained power in a feudal society: through their sons. Viserys’ treatment of Alicent and her children creates a precedent that threatens every future queen who is not a Targaryen. It destabilizes alliances, elevates blood purity over law, and shows other houses that their daughters and grandchildren might not be safe.
Alyssa, Alysanne, and Rhaenys all had their children respected. Alicent alone was denied that basic recognition and it was because of blood purity and Viserys’ failures as a king. Yes, Alysanne wasn’t a ruling queen just like Alicent, but she still had enormous influence because her children’s rights were fully recognized. That’s the entire difference. Alysanne didn’t need to be a Queen Regnant for her children to matter. Under feudal custom, a queen consort’s power came through her children especially her sons. And Alysanne’s sons were never dismissed, ignored, the way Alicent’s were. Alysanne didn’t challenge the king bc her children were safe and in the line of the succession. Alicent had to challenge the king bc her children were in danger and left with nothing.
E.
Alicent would lose much if Rhaenyra ruled and She had MANY reasons to fear her.
Alicent herself would be disempowered if Rhaenyra became queen, so her actions weren’t just about selfishly hurting Rhaenyra they were about protecting her own position, her children’s future, and her family’s power. Again In a feudal system, a queen consort’s influence depended almost entirely on her children and their place in the line of succession. If Rhaenyra were recognized as the heir, backed by Driftmark and the crown, Alicent’s sons would have virtually no chance at political power, and by extension, Alicent herself would lose the authority and leverage that comes with being the mother of future kings.
If Rhaenyra sits the Iron Throne, fully backed by the Velaryons and all the major power players in Westeros, Alicent and her kids would basically be politically erased. They’d lose influence, titles, and protection, and their entire future would depend on Rhaenyra’s mercy. Alicent’s kids automatically become “rival claimants,” and in a monarchy like Westeros, that’s basically a death sentence. At best, rival heirs get pushed out of power forever. At worst, they get imprisoned or quietly killed. Real history proves this over and over.
GRRM explicitly comparing the Dance of the Dragons succession conflict to the Tudor succession conflicts: multiple children from different wives, disputed claims, and the way birth order, gender, and maternal lineage affect inheritance. Just like Henry VIII’s children (Mary, Elizabeth, Edward), Viserys’ heirs from different queens create a messy, contested line, leading to rivalries, and eventual civil war.
GRRM said:
“Would it have made a difference if Rhaenyra and Aegon were full siblings, only a year apart?
If they were full siblings, regardless of age, the son have inherited rather than the daughter. I had to make it more complicated than that. Two children by different mothers, different wives? First wife and second wife? I always look to history for inspiration, and if you look at Henry VIII and his six wives, he had a daughter by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and that was Mary Tudor, Queen Mary I. And then he had a daughter by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, and that was Queen Elizabeth. Then by the third wife, Jane Seymour, he finally had a son, Edward VI. He was third in line, but he was the first to become king. History is full of these kinds of conflicts.”
GRRM is mixing up the facts a bit. Edward VI wasn’t “third in line”. Henry VIII’s first child, Mary, was technically illegitimate for much of Henry’s reign after he annulled his marriage to Catherine, though she was later legitimized. Elizabeth, his daughter by Anne Boleyn, was also declared illegitimate after Anne’s fall. Edward, his son by Jane Seymour, was the only legitimate male heir, so by English law (male-preference primogeniture), he was first in line once born, not third. So saying Edward was “third in line” is inaccurate; he was born third but became the heir because he was the first surviving legitimate male. GRRM conflates birth order with succession order.
Nevertheless!, the Tudor succession provides a clearer parallel to the Dance than the Anarchy because it involves sibling rivalry.
Viserys ignored the established succession rules, putting Aegon and his family in a danger. By favoring Rhaenyra over his own male heirs, he not only insulted Alicent and the Hightower family but also set the stage for political instability and conflict. Bypassing the eldest sons of the king isn’t just unusual it’s a direct challenge to tradition, law, and the natural expectations of the lords, which almost guarantees resistance or rebellion. Look at Elizabeth I. Her own half-brother Edward VI cut her out of the succession because he saw her as illegitimate and dangerous. Her half-sister Mary I imprisoned her because a rebellion used Elizabeth’s name Mary saw her as a political threat simply for existing. Later, Elizabeth had to deal with Mary, Queen of Scots, a cousin with a strong claim whose presence caused endless plots and threats. Elizabeth eventually had her executed not because she wanted to, but because every advisor told her the same truth: you cannot let a rival claimant live.
History is full of the same story:
Someone with a legitimate claim
Becomes a rival
Gets imprisoned
And usually executed
Jane Grey, Mary of Scots, countless pretenders and cousins it’s always the same fate. The only reason Elizabeth survived her imprisonment was because killing her risked putting England under Scotland’s control. Otherwise, she likely wouldn’t have lived, either. Now put that same pattern into Fire & Blood.
Rhaenyra has a claim.
Aegon has a claim.
Two claims cannot coexist. Ever.
The very existence of one threatens the life of the other. That’s not paranoia that’s the political reality of hereditary monarchy. This is exactly what Alicent understands. Her son Aegon’s survival depends on his claim. If Rhaenyra becomes queen, Alicent knows history says her children will not be allowed to live as potential threats. She is not wrong to fear this she would be foolish not to. People asking, “Why didn’t Alicent just trust Rhaenyra’s promise?” are ignoring the entire history of monarchy. Rival heirs are killed as a rule, not an exception. Even Elizabeth I one of England’s greatest rulers executed her own cousin to protect her throne. So expecting Rhaenyra and the Blacks to simply “let the Greens live” is unrealistic. The stakes are life and death, and history shows that promises, sisterhood, and family ties don’t matter once a crown is on the line. Alicent isn’t acting out of petty jealousy she’s reacting to the oldest political truth in monarchy: If your child is a rival heir, your child is in danger.
Rhaenyra never gave Alicent or Alicent’s children any real reason to feel safe. She barely interacted with her younger half-siblings at all growing up. She didn’t try to bond with them, didn’t build trust, and didn’t treat them like family. The only time she really spoke up about them was when she demanded that Aemond be questioned (punished) for calling her sons bastards. She never referred to them as “my brothers,” the way siblings in normal families would. She always used “half-brothers,”
Alicent had more than enough proof that her children were in real danger. The Driftmark succession crisis made that absolutely clear. A man was publicly executed in the throne room simply for telling the truth. When Vaemond Velaryon questioned the legitimacy of Rhaenyra’s sons, Daemon cut off his head on the spot no trial, no restraint, no blame from the king.
And the book version is even darker. Vaemond didn’t rebel. He didn’t plot treason. He didn’t raise an army. He simply said out loud what every noble in Westeros whispered in private: Rhaenyra’s sons weren’t Laenor’s. Rhaenyra’s answer? She sent Daemon to decapitate him, then had his headless body fed to her dragon a brutal, shocking message meant to silence anyone who questioned her children. Using a dragon to kill a man for speaking the truth isn’t justice. It isn’t strength. It’s pure fear. It shows insecurity, not authority. This is what tyranny looks like: when truth becomes a death sentence and power decides what reality is.
And it didn’t end with Vaemond. When his family begged Viserys for justice, he had their tongues ripped out for the crime of repeating the “lie” about Rhaenyra’s sons. That basically gave Rhaenyra a blank check to hurt anyone she wanted in order to protect the false paternity of her children. Even the Iron Throne responded. In the books, Viserys cuts himself on the throne something barely mentioned in the show and nearly dies from the infection. Maester Gerardys had to amputate two fingers to save him. This wasn’t random. Cutting oneself on the throne is seen as a sign that the king is failing at a crucial moment. Viserys wasn’t wounded because of some mystical “bad luck.” He was wounded right after ordering men mutilated simply for grieving and speaking the truth.
This is why If her children didn’t inherit, neither she nor her family would be “safe” they could be left with nothing, politically vulnerable, or even at the mercy of rivals.
