To the limited extent that prima noctis could be said to have actually been in legal effect, it was a presumption not a positive right. A descriptive legal fact rather than a mandate.
The concept of prima noctis was that if a lord held a woman in service about his person, as a maid or whatever, then he was presumed to have slept with her. An unrelated fact was that such persons were legally required to recieve the lord's permission to marry, and you'll note that a marriage that took place without such permission would have been a bibding apiritual covenant nevertheless devoid if legal reality, and thus somewhat of a criminal or outlaw proceeding. An elopement following that would have amounted to a kidnapping, among other problems.
Now obviously these two facts combined could result in abuse. But the initial presumption was not about all serfs so much as just the serfs about a lord's person. To the extent that these facts were combined, it primarily resulted in a marriage tax, not in the least because the activities of priests are easy to track and because a wedding is an ostentatious, and thus easily taxed, event.
GRRM is the kind of writer who will acknowledge all of these facts independently, that secret marriage is essentially a criminal covenant, that servants are sexually available to their lords and masters, and that the church was an extension of the state, and then apply highly inflammatory concepts like "prima noctis" anyway, as if they had any independent existence from these facts. All while claiming to care about legal minutae like "what was aragorn's tax policy" while ignoring the simple reality that so-called prima noctis was itself a tax policy.
The experimental anine movie "belladonna of sadness," based on a french novel, applies a more realistic if not less sensational lens to these dynamics between peasant and lord, and this movie is literally about witchcraft and feminist devil-worship. Even granting that witchcraft is inherently related to simony, by focusing on or even fetishizing money and tax collection you get a far better picture of what prima noctis was about than what GRRM provides. GRRM writes like lords just had these rights to abuse peasants randomly for fun, as if these weren't regular (if opportunistic) processes that peasants could avoid by good conduct or the payment of an appropriate tax. Peasants had both rights and tools of resistance, and as flimsy as these rights may have been they still couldn't be flouted freely.
It reminds me of dragons. I like less the idea of breeding dragons and more the idea of being part dragon or born from dragon. My drag act will have dragon elements
This is pretty much a short book
It's more of a treatise.
I got to the bits about Lys/the attempted coup, then saw how much was left of the article. Sorry bro I gotta do some work today. It's just a lot.
Nice. Someone had to make stand against self-righteous like Aemon Dragonknight or Blackwoods.
Ok, about prima noctos, just because it bugs me.
To the limited extent that prima noctis could be said to have actually been in legal effect, it was a presumption not a positive right. A descriptive legal fact rather than a mandate.
The concept of prima noctis was that if a lord held a woman in service about his person, as a maid or whatever, then he was presumed to have slept with her. An unrelated fact was that such persons were legally required to recieve the lord's permission to marry, and you'll note that a marriage that took place without such permission would have been a bibding apiritual covenant nevertheless devoid if legal reality, and thus somewhat of a criminal or outlaw proceeding. An elopement following that would have amounted to a kidnapping, among other problems.
Now obviously these two facts combined could result in abuse. But the initial presumption was not about all serfs so much as just the serfs about a lord's person. To the extent that these facts were combined, it primarily resulted in a marriage tax, not in the least because the activities of priests are easy to track and because a wedding is an ostentatious, and thus easily taxed, event.
GRRM is the kind of writer who will acknowledge all of these facts independently, that secret marriage is essentially a criminal covenant, that servants are sexually available to their lords and masters, and that the church was an extension of the state, and then apply highly inflammatory concepts like "prima noctis" anyway, as if they had any independent existence from these facts. All while claiming to care about legal minutae like "what was aragorn's tax policy" while ignoring the simple reality that so-called prima noctis was itself a tax policy.
The experimental anine movie "belladonna of sadness," based on a french novel, applies a more realistic if not less sensational lens to these dynamics between peasant and lord, and this movie is literally about witchcraft and feminist devil-worship. Even granting that witchcraft is inherently related to simony, by focusing on or even fetishizing money and tax collection you get a far better picture of what prima noctis was about than what GRRM provides. GRRM writes like lords just had these rights to abuse peasants randomly for fun, as if these weren't regular (if opportunistic) processes that peasants could avoid by good conduct or the payment of an appropriate tax. Peasants had both rights and tools of resistance, and as flimsy as these rights may have been they still couldn't be flouted freely.
Looks like someone opened a new bottle of amphetamines.
Also would love to see you do the rest of the series episode by episode. Almost reminds me a bit of the YouTube series Spoilers Ahead.
You sometimes channel Aegon? He is an ancestor?
It reminds me of dragons. I like less the idea of breeding dragons and more the idea of being part dragon or born from dragon. My drag act will have dragon elements