I recently went down a bit of an English history rabbit hole, stretching from the Anglo-Saxon era through to the rise of the Tudors. The period that fascinated me most were the years of the Wars of the Roses. This was a long, messy, multi-generational civil war between rival noble houses fighting for the English throne. It was a conflict full of shifting alliances, betrayals, and sudden reversals. If that sounds familiar, it should.
As I was reading about the Wars of the Roses, I kept noticing parallels with the Game of Thrones series (GoT), not just vague similarities, but specific patterns that show up again and again in Westeros.
Some of them are surface-level, for example, everyone in GoT speaks with British accents, and the world is recognizably medieval and feudal. But the deeper parallels are more interesting.
Take geography: England is an island off the coast of a larger continent. Westeros is the same, lying off the coast of Essos. Take migrations: England was shaped by waves of settlers from Europe, most notably the Celts, then the Anglo-Saxons. Westeros has the First Men and the Andals from Essos. Even "the Wall" of Westeros has a real-world echo in Hadrian's Wall, a massive barrier the Romans built in Scotland that separated "civilization" to its south from the "barbarians" to its north.
But the strongest parallels show up when you zoom in on the Wars of the Roses themselves.
At the center of the conflict are the house of Lancaster and the house of York. The Lancastrians hold the throne at the start of the war, with Henry VI ruling from London. But Henry isn't really the driving force, his wife, Margaret of Anjou, is.
Opposing them from the cold, northern city of York, is its Duke, Richard. He starts off loyal, but grows frustrated with the influence the queen and the court advisors have over the king and tries to “fix” things. That doesn't go well. He's defeated, killed, and his head ends up on display on a spike.
This is basically the plot of the first season of GoT! You have a weak king ruling from a southern capital, and a much more capable (and ruthless) queen operating behind the scenes. Like Richard, you have Eddard Stark, an honorable man who walks into a political game he can't win.
York and Stark, Lancaster and Lannister - even the names sound similar! The comparisons almost write themselves.
"When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground."- Margaret of Anjou to Richard of York- Cersei Lannister to Ned Stark
Just like in the show, the conflict passes on to the next generation. Richard's son, Edward IV, picks up where his father left off, and unlike poor Robb Stark, he actually wins. He takes the throne and becomes king.
Even though the stories aren't a 1 to 1 match, you can still see a lot of similar patterns. For example, Edward, like Robb, marries for love instead of politics, going against his advisors. While this ends disastrously for Robb, it isn't as bad for Edward. Still, his reign is anything but peaceful. The throne changes hands multiple times between Edward IV and Henry VI, and Margaret continues to fight to secure it for her son (also called Edward!).
Margaret's story ends badly. When Edward IV finally triumphs, her son is killed and her cause collapses. She's eventually ransomed back to France, where she lives out her final years in poverty. I can't help but feel that Cersei Lannister should have ended up more like Margaret. Out of power, out of options, and forced to live with what she'd done. The show lets her off far too easily with a quick death.
Margaret of Anjou captured and disgraced; Cersei Lannister crushed beneath the Red Keep
Another figure who feels like he belongs in Westeros is Richard III, King Edward IV's younger brother.
When Edward IV dies, the throne passes to his 13 year old son, Edward V. Richard is meant to act as protector, but instead, he takes power for himself. The young king and his 6 year old brother are locked in the Tower of London and then disappear.
That alone would make him a classic villain. And thanks to Shakespeare, that's exactly how he is remembered: An evil, hunchbacked king, "deformed, unfinish'd", twisted both inside and out.
But, Richard to me isn't a pure villain. In some ways, he feels closer to GoT's Tyrion Lannister, a figure judged heavily for his appearance, surrounded by suspicion, accused of murdering a royal nephew, yet more capable and more complex than his reputation suggests. Contemporary accounts describe Richard III as an "enlightened lawmaker" and a competent commander who showed concern for his subjects.
When you look at the context, his actions become a little more understandable. Richard had lived through years of instability. Just as things seemed to be settling, the throne was set to pass to a child. History had shown that child kings rarely ruled securely. From that perspective, it’s not hard to see why he might have believed that a stronger hand was needed to maintain order, especially with threats beginning to emerge from across the sea.
"I wish I was the monster you think I am."- Richard III- Tyrion Lannister
Far away in France, Henry Tudor, a distant Lancaster heir, begins to see himself as king. Like Daenerys Targaryen across the sea in Essos, he has a claim, but not much else. No one really takes him seriously until he gathers support and an army to back it up.
In 1485, he invades England and defeats Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, where Richard becomes the last English king to die in battle. A victorious Henry VII doesn’t just take the throne, he secures it. He marries Elizabeth of York, uniting the two houses, and moves quickly to eliminate or neutralize anyone who could challenge his claim.
History shows pretty constently that civil wars don’t end because everyone agrees, they end because one side becomes impossible to challenge. You see it in Rome with Augustus Caesar. You see it here with the Tudors.
The "Tudor rose" - made by combining the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York, after the wars of the roses
This is why the ending of GoT feels so off to me. After years of war, you still have multiple powerful factions, unresolved grievances, and plenty of competing claims. And yet, everything is wrapped up in a single afternoon, with everyone just... agreeing. That's not how these things end.
Bran the Broken is "elected" king, and Sansa rules an independent North. What stops the other kingdoms from claiming independence? Who is going to succeed Bran? Many civil wars, especially in monarchies, begin as succession crises.
If anything, this doesn't feel like a conclusion, it feels like a pause. Because even if the current generation is tired of fighting, the next one won't be. Claims don't disappear. Grievances don't vanish.
They just wait.
“This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years” - Ferdinand Foch, allied commander during WW1, on the signing of the treaty of Versailles (WW2 started 20 years and 65 days later)
Thanks for reading this post. I'd love to hear your thoughts! Click here to send me your comments.
Liked what you read? Check out all my other posts here!