It's no accident that the human drama at the core of Game of Thrones was based on the UK's distant past with the Plantagenets, the War of the Roses and some infamous Scottish betrayals thrown into the fictional soup.
Fights for influence, to preserve reputations and traditions, and maintain public support, have replaced physically violent grabs for control of the kingdom. Emotional, personal rifts can still be intense and consequential.
The current game of thrones between the House of Windsor and the rebellious Duke and Duchess of Sussex is a battle for believability and public support waged through the British and American media. It's hard not to view it all with a sceptical eye.
Harry and Meghan received a lot of negative and stressful media attention from the UK tabloids after their marriage. Yet they have also since courted US media.
They are building their profiles in the US with Netflix and Spotify deals and this week's soul-baring chat with Oprah Winfrey seemed designed to stir sympathy among an American audience. It was watched by an estimated 17 million people there.
But it would have come at a huge family cost.
The "bombshell" revelations in the Winfrey interview concerned allegations of racism, emotional fragility, and lack of support. The couple had warm words for the Queen, and Winfrey clarified yesterday that alleged comments about baby Archie's skin colour did not involve the Queen or Prince Philip.
What was surprising was who the Sussexes were targeting. Not scandal-plagued Prince Andrew, for instance.
Instead, Prince Harry said his father, Prince Charles, stopped returning his calls at one point and "I feel really let down". He said he had been "trapped" in the royal system. "My father, my brother, they are trapped." Harry's relationship with Prince William was not close. Meghan said comments from Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, had made her "cry".
That's burning bridges with the future core of the family. Will Harry, a man who tragically lost his mother as a child, end up regretting this move?
The monarchy's ability to endure over the centuries needs to be kept in mind when judging the challenges the family faces.
It's well known that the monarchy can harness British establishment and some media support in its defence. Last week, Buckingham Palace said it would investigate claims in a Times report that the Duchess of Sussex bullied staff, which she termed a calculated smear.
The Windsors have managed to subdue the very serious scandal over Andrew and his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for the time being.
Yet Harry and Meghan represent the biggest conundrum for the family since Princess Diana's divorce from Charles and her later death in 1997.
At its heart is the question of whether the family can keep navigating the changes in British life enough to stay reasonably in tune with it — rather than just becoming anachronistic dynastic celebrities, minus any mystique or gravitas.
That question becomes more urgent with the Queen at 94.
Diana added new glamour and appeal to the institution and bequeathed the Windsors their future in Prince William and his telegenic family.
William and Harry seemed for a long time to be able to walk the tightrope of being popular yet taken seriously enough through work and projects.
It would have been a culture shock for Meghan, an American in her 30s with an acting career and used to an independent life, to fit within the rigid royal framework.
There was hope that Meghan - being biracial and able to understand the shifting generational sands and speak to new attitudes in a diverse country - could have modernised the royals further.
Now Harry and Meghan seem set to be two more international celebrities with causes.
William and Kate represent a fresh-faced but familiar establishment version of the royals.
This game of thrones could influence how the monarchy next evolves.
