Yet, we must ask: is it always treason? Or is it a reclamation of agency? For royal women, loyalty to the crown often meant self-erasure. A daughter who refuses to be her mother’s pawn—who chooses her own husband, her own faith, or her own throne—is labeled a traitor by the very system that denies her autonomy. Similarly, a mother who sees her daughter as a political asset rather than a child may commit the original betrayal of motherhood: using her offspring as currency.
The psychology of this treachery is distinct. A son who rebels against a royal mother is expected—he seeks his own crown. But a daughter’s rebellion is considered unnatural. When a princess betrays her queen mother, she is not just rejecting the state; she is rejecting the only model of female power she has been shown. Conversely, when a queen mother brands her daughter a traitor, she is often projecting her own survival instinct—sacrificing the daughter to save the dynasty or her own position. -ENG- Traitorous Royal Ladies -Mother and Daugh...
In literature and popular culture, this theme thrives because it interrogates the very foundation of royal legitimacy. In the HBO series Succession (though corporate rather than royal), the parallel is clear: Logan Roy’s daughter, Shiv, repeatedly betrays her father’s wishes, while her mother, Caroline, betrays her children for personal gain. The historical fiction of Philippa Gregory often explores this, particularly in The Constant Princess (Catherine of Aragon and her mother Isabella of Castile) where the daughter’s loyalty to her mother’s legacy of strength becomes treason against her new English husband. Yet, we must ask: is it always treason
