Kingmonkey Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It precludes a ravisher... and a woman who consents later to be ravished from inheriting from husbands and ancestors.---Note the absence of criminal charges.---Note the absence of the intent of the family..---Note the absence of punishment for the rapist or ravisherYes, if you take one section I quoted in a different context and assume that's the entire statute, that would be true. ... and that the husbands of such women, if they have husbands, or, if they have no husbands in life, then the fathers or other next of their blood, have from henceforth the suit to pursue, and may sue against the same offenders and ravishers in this behalf, and to have them thereof convict of life and member, although the same women after such rape to consent to the said ravishers.I gave you a quote above from a historian in the field specifically discussing this case and the subsequent statue as a means of legal recourse against those cases where abduction is used as an excuse to allow elopement rather than going through with arranged marriage. That's what the historians who specialise in this area say, I merely pass on their opinion. Mine is, I happily confess, purely an argument from authority. If you feel the experts who dedicate their lives to the study of this field are wrong, I urge you to take it up with them, because I don't have the expertise in the fine points of medieval law relating to rape and ravishment to debate this. Under the laws of constantine, rape was not a crime against the woman at all. It was a crime against the man that was responsible for the woman. Constantine simply changed it from a private wrong to a public one....Justinian took things a bit further... but legal history and the evolution of rape starting 500 plus years before the time in question is probably not appropriate for RLJAs an expert in the jurisprudence of the era, I am sure you are well aware that this was an era where the laws of Rome were being re-established and refined. The question was did women run away from an arranged marriage. You pointed to the failure to arrange a marriage. That seriously is not the same thing.No, I pointed to a woman who was ordered to return home to have her marriage arranged, and secretly arranged a marriage of her own to circumvent this. The difference between someone eloping after "I am going to arrange you marriage" rather than "I have already arranged your marriage" is simply splitting hairs. For it to be considered abnormal, outrageous, and illegal what GRRM said must be wrong... people must have questioned arranged marriages and not gone through with them for others to consider them abnormal, outrageous, or illegal. GRRM didn't say that it never happened, so he's not wrong. He said that a princess marrying the stable boy didn't happen. He said that the concept of arranged marriage wasn't questioned, which is not the same as saying that nobody ever attempted to circumvent it. The concept of murder being wrong isn't questioned either, but nonetheless, murders take place. He says "people went through with them", not "everyone went through with them without exception". It was normal and accepted to go through with them, just as it is normal and accepted to not murder someone who looks at you funny, or blows their nose in an irritating fashion. "People don't murder each other for no good reason" is a perfectly sound statement, while "Nobody ever murdered anyone for no good reason" isn't.As I said, to think that never in all the millions of cases of arranged marriage did anyone ever try to circumvent it is howling at the moon. I do not contend that GRRM said this. Yes, if really did intend to say that, then he's flat out wrong and making a barking mad assumption. I don't believe this to be the case, I give him far more credit than that. He said that it wasn't questioned, not that it was never done. It was, and in cultures where arranged marriage is still a thing, still is done. And it has consequences, because the right and normality of it was unquestioned. The books are much easier to go through than history... there is not an example of a woman running away from an arranged marriage... aside from the fanfiction that Lyanna eloped...Can you show that Lyanna did not elope? If not, then it remains a possibility, and to claim that she did not elope would be equally "fan fiction" as to claim that she did. And no, showing that various people believed she did not elope is not proof of anything other than what they believed. We do not know if she was willing or not. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.