Emma D'Arcy as Rhaenyra in 'House of The Dragon' looks badass with a dragon behind her.
(HBO)

Someone Pointed out That ‘House of the Dragon’ Is Too Moral to Be Medieval, and Frankly, I Agree

The anti-war sentiment is uncharacteristic!

Almost 9/10 times when someone calls a movie or a show “too woke,” I do a hard ignore, lest there be an unsavory exchange of words. But when the show in question is a medieval fantasy like House of the Dragon, you can’t help but give a second thought to its morality.

Recommended Videos

When Game of Thrones first landed on our TV screens, we were all rightly shocked because we’d never seen something so ruthless, brutal, and, erm … incestuous. When Ned Stark lost his head and when the seemingly good guys committed war crimes without blinking an eye, it was accepted because that’s how savage, survival-driven, and problematic the medieval times were. Patriarchy reigned supreme. Men were beasts, and women weren’t all that great, either. Every character was fifty shades of grey.

Rhaenyra and Rhaenys Targaryen, played by Emma D'Arcy and Eve Best, have a discussion in the second season of House of the Dragon
(HBO)

There were enough complaints of violence-porn on screen against the series that when House of the Dragon arrived and chose to refrain from it, there was a collective sigh of relief. The female gaze in the sex scenes was welcome, and so were the anti-war statements that the show was subtly making by having its female characters like Alicent, Rhaenyra, and Rhaenys refrain from rash violence while doing everything they could to keep the peace.

And yet, one user on Reddit pointed out that House of The Dragon wasn’t letting its characters be medieval enough. And their observations weren’t all that off.

Leaked spoilers ahead for House of the Dragon season 2 finale in the Reddit post!

The author of the post lists six reasons for claiming what they do, all of which point out how multiple characters like Aegon, Aemond, or Rhaenyra are shamed for doing something that would actually be quite acceptable for medieval society, especially during a time of war. Two points, in particular, stood out to me—the aversion to war and the smallfolk thinking they deserve the same comforts as the God-like Kings and Queens that rule over them.

Olivia Cooke as Alicent Hightower touches Ewan Mitchell as Aemond Targaryen's cheek in House of the Dragon
(HBO)

By making Rhaenyra and Alicent the initial moral markers of the story, House of the Dragon is trying to show a gradual decline and breaking of those morals for maximum emotional impact. Both of these characters are mothers with the instinct for protection and peace and are risk and conflict-averse. But of course, when sh*t hits the fan, their anger overruns any moral responsibility they feel towards their people, and the war still happens.

However, as the post’s author points out, people of those times, especially in such positions of power, would never think twice about the collateral damage in war or waging a war itself. Just look back at Game of Thrones and you’ll see how even someone as maternal as Catelyn Stark didn’t think twice before amassing an army and letting her firstborn lead it to avenge her husband’s execution. War was an inevitability in those times, and being a woman didn’t mean you were a pacifist who would judge others for causing so much bloodshed.

Daemon Targaryen and his vision of a young Rhaenyra Targaryen in the second season of House of the Dragon
(HBO)

This point is a strong argument against the entire Harrenhal arc for Daemon Targaryen, who, through his visions, is being therapized into feeling remorse for something as basic as wanting to rule. It’s natural for members of royal families to harbor that ambition and be jealous when someone else gets it, especially when that person is your weaker sibling or your wife because feminism didn’t exist and women in those times were not considered fit to rule!

The other point about the socio-economic disparity that the smallfolk took offense at might be a stretch because, of course, a king can’t (or rather, shouldn’t) be feasting when his subjects are dying from a lack of resources. Once again, though, the argument persists that in those times, it was completely normal for the royal family to continue living a life of luxury during a war instead of opening their kitchens and treasuries to the poor. 

So yes, House of the Dragon is uncharacteristically sanitized and moral for a medieval-inspired fantasy. Perhaps this is to make the immoral choices stand out in stark contrast, which would then make the downfall of a once god-adjacent House Targaryen seem even more tragic.

What do you think?


The Mary Sue is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
Author
Image of Jinal Bhatt
Jinal Bhatt
Jinal Bhatt (She/Her) is a staff writer for The Mary Sue. An editor, writer, film and culture critic with 7+ years of experience, she writes primarily about entertainment, pop culture trends, and women in film, but she’s got range. Jinal is the former Associate Editor for Hauterrfly, and Senior Features Writer for Mashable India. When not working, she’s fangirling over her favourite films and shows, gushing over fictional men, cruising through her neverending watchlist, trying to finish that book on her bedside, and fighting relentless urges to rewatch Supernatural.