Roose Bolton: "Apparently they had married without my knowledge or consent"

[GregL65]

I'm curious about Roose Bolton's statement that he hung a miller and raped his bride because "Apparently they had married without my knowledge or consent". Is it normal in this world that peasants would have to get permission from their lord to get married, and that they would suffer severe punishment if they did not get permission? Or is that just in Roose Bolton's domain?

Also, was that bit inspired by anything in the real medieval world?

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, GregL65 said:

I'm curious about Roose Bolton's statement that he hung a miller and raped his bride because "Apparently they had married without my knowledge or consent". Is it normal in this world that peasants would have to get permission from their lord to get married, and that they would suffer severe punishment if they did not get permission? Or is that just in Roose Bolton's domain?

Also, was that bit inspired by anything in the real medieval world?

Well, considering that he has hundreds of thousands of peasants in his lands, I find it unlikely that he has knowledge of every marriage that takes place in his domain.

[Crippledtank]

It has to do with the first bedding right. Where the ruling lord or king was granted the "right" of basically consumating the marriage (doing the deed as i understand it). It was a thing in the real world although was often paid off by the husband so the lord/king would not accept the right. 

In asoaif it was outlawed by a tagaryen king long ago.

[Ser Leftwich]

Possibly related things are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

[Winter Rose Crown]

It is a reference to real-world Prima Nocta. Good Queen Alyssane was one of the reasons it was outlawed (IIRC) in Westeros.

[Mystrandir]

It's worth noting that there is no contemporary evidence for Prima Nocta ever actually happening in medieval Europe.

[Ser Leftwich]

That peasants/serfs couldn't get married without permission makes sense.

Lords can tax just about whatever they like, why not marriages and/or dowries?

[Ice Turtle]

IMO I do not think that peasants usually need content of their lord, if there ever was such a law in Westeros or North it was half forgotten, Roose just used it for a half - hearted justification of his actions. I think that it never even occurred to the miller that he could get into any trouble for marrying and not telling his lord. Likely most lords would be annoyed to be bothered with such nonsense.

[Ser Frasier of House Crane]

1 minute ago, Ice Turtle said:

IMO I do not think that peasants usually need content of their lord, if there ever was such a law in Westeros or North it was half forgotten, Roose just used it for a half - hearted justification of his actions. I think that it never even occurred to the miller that he could get into any trouble for marrying and not telling his lord. Likely most lords would be annoyed to be bothered with such nonsense.

This. I think that Roose rode up, fancied the miller's wife, then cruelly forced the miller into a corner with his "why didn't you notify me?" spiel, and then hanged the poor sap.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

2 hours ago, Mystrandir said:

It's worth noting that there is no contemporary evidence for Prima Nocta ever actually happening in medieval Europe.

It does. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derecho_de_pernada

[Mystrandir]

10 minutes ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

It does. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derecho_de_pernada

First of all it's interesting to me that the Spanish language version of this page has way more information than the English.

I'm sure things are being lost when I translate this page to English but the information on that page still seems rather ambiguous as to whether the actual concept of the First Night was ever observed. Plenty of evidence of sexual abuse perpetrated on underlings of powerful people but not any evidence beyond accounts of it happening centuries after the fact.

Was there a particular part of that link you were referring to?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Just now, Mystrandir said:

First of all it's interesting to me that the Spanish language version of this page has way more information than the English.

I'm sure things are being lost when I translate this page to English but the information on that page still seems rather ambiguous as to whether the actual concept of the First Night was ever observed. Plenty of evidence of sexual abuse perpetrated on underlings of powerful people but not any evidence beyond accounts of it happening centuries after the fact.

Was there a particular part of that link you were referring to?

I've been wanting to translate that for years!!!

Anyway, yes, there is ambiguous evidence. Not enough to confirm, but not enough to discredit it either.

Sadly, the "myth" of it existing kinda spread to Americas, when it did happen. So, yeah, it kinda did exist.

[Mystrandir]

2 minutes ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

I've been wanting to translate that for years!!!

Anyway, yes, there is ambiguous evidence. Not enough to confirm, but not enough to discredit it either.

Sadly, the "myth" of it existing kinda spread to Americas, when it did happen. So, yeah, it kinda did exist.

Well I can guarantee at least one person would read it if you did.

I wasn't trying to say that it didn't happen, just to point out that what people often take as a common part of feudal Europe may not have been real at all (at least until people took the myth and made it a reality), or at least not the way they envision it.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Just now, Mystrandir said:

Well I can guarantee at least one person would read it if you did.

I wasn't trying to say that it didn't happen, just to point out that what people often take as a common part of feudal Europe may not have been real at all (at least until people took the myth and made it a reality), or at least not the way they envision it.

Yeah, I get it. It's like those "women never worked!" myths. It has some parts of true and some exaggerations.

[oopeed]

3 hours ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

I've been wanting to translate that for years!!!

Anyway, yes, there is ambiguous evidence. Not enough to confirm, but not enough to discredit it either.

Sadly, the "myth" of it existing kinda spread to Americas, when it did happen. So, yeah, it kinda did exist.

But ASOIAF is not based in colonial America, thus is irrelevant... But yes it did and still happens that local authorities have their way with newlyweds, mostly in remote places (The Americas are a largely rural place actually) and lots of this abuses were and are inflicted upon indigenous groups. In Mexico and Guatemala (that I am certain) in some places under control of cartels or the use and customs laws, people actually indeed ask permission to have a wedding reception and the pokey pokey rapey rapey stuff happens from time to time

 

So yes, it's not a myth, and it didn't happen a long time ago.

 

Anyway, Roose has been consistently trashed in the books so people remember he is a nasty piece of shit and a villain and do not begin worshiping him like they worship Westeros' Vlad III of Wallachia, Tywin Lannister. There ain't really no reason to think on his deeds and his past except that he's a bad guy and even worse traitor than FN-2187

[ForTheNorth]

Roose is working for the others and he's producing sacrifices. That's why he was pissed 

[Macgregor of the North]

17 hours ago, Mystrandir said:

It's worth noting that there is no contemporary evidence for Prima Nocta ever actually happening in medieval Europe.

I remember when the movie Braveheart first came out i was interested if there was any real truth to this scene from the movie so i researched it a bit to see if there was 'hard' evidence the Nobles of my homeland actually practised 'Jus Primae Noctis' back in the days but there is no concrete evidence of this practice happening at all really.

I have no doubt certains Lords and Nobles etc. took liberties as per their station in life and took what they fancied from time to time much like Roose had that day, but as to it being a law or practice that was followed by and large im not so sure.  

So from these time to time happenings, the myth may have generated through the centuries that it was an actual set law or practice where it probably wasnt in reality.

 

[SeanF]

17 hours ago, GregL65 said:

I'm curious about Roose Bolton's statement that he hung a miller and raped his bride because "Apparently they had married without my knowledge or consent". Is it normal in this world that peasants would have to get permission from their lord to get married, and that they would suffer severe punishment if they did not get permission? Or is that just in Roose Bolton's domain?

Also, was that bit inspired by anything in the real medieval world?

Ius Primae Noctis seems to have been a myth.  But, it plays a part in the story.

However, it is a fact that serfs had to a pay a fine to their manorial lord, in return for his permission to marry (a fine, in that period of time, being essentially a licence fee, rather than a penalty).  Such permission would be expected, unless the lord considered the marriage to be an unsuitable one (eg if the husband had a reputation for violence, or being a poor worker).

Roose Bolton's lands are the size of England, but doubtless very sparsely populated.  Given that he was out hunting, we can assume that the Miller and his wife lived close by the Dreadfort, on Roose's personal domain.  They would be under his close supervision.  In all likelihood, they ought to have applied for permission to marry to his bailiffs.

Elsewhere, the land is probably ruled by petty lords and landowners who owe fealty to Roose.  They may have different customs.

[daccu65]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Roose Bolton's lands are the size of England, but doubtless very sparsely populated.  Given that he was out hunting, we can assume that the Miller and his wife lived close by the Dreadfort, on Roose's personal domain.  They would be under his close supervision.  In all likelihood, they ought to have applied for permission to marry to his bailiffs.

Elsewhere, the land is probably ruled by petty lords and landowners who owe fealty to Roose.  They may have different customs.

I was about to say something to the effect that most of Roose's lands are probably administered in his name by various bannermen.  Those lands near the Dreadfort would be under his personal, direct control and all marriages in these lands would be subject to his approval. 

In addition, Roose would have had a closer eye on the miller than to most other smallfolk in his domain.  Mills are valuable, recurring revenue resources; look at the negotiations Jamie conducts between Blackwood and Bracken...a mill had to change hands and all parties knew it.  Had Roose found himself at a sharecropper's hut, he probably wouldn't have recognized the man, much less realized that he had been married without leave.  On the other hand, Roose would be more inclined to remember the millers on his personal lands, and would be more angered by such a man going outside his laws. 

 

 

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, daccu65 said:

I was about to say something to the effect that most of Roose's lands are probably administered in his name by various bannermen.  Those lands near the Dreadfort would be under his personal, direct control and all marriages in these lands would be subject to his approval. 

In addition, Roose would have had a closer eye on the miller than to most other smallfolk in his domain.  Mills are valuable, recurring revenue resources; look at the negotiations Jamie conducts between Blackwood and Bracken...a mill had to change hands and all parties knew it.  Had Roose found himself at a sharecropper's hut, he probably wouldn't have recognized the man, much less realized that he had been married without leave.  On the other hand, Roose would be more inclined to remember the millers on his personal lands, and would be more angered by such a man going outside his laws. 

 

 

I agree.

In truth, I imagine that the average lord in Westeros would punish someone who married without his permission by seizing goods or livestock, rather than killing him and raping his wife (which is why Roose kept his behaviour secret).

Roose is in reality, little better than Ramsay.