First Night in "The Princess and The Queen"... disturbing?

[ummester]

That is a bit of a no-brainer. I am writing a novel about a girl who gets raped at the start of the book (amongst other plots) and ends up reaping a fair swath of vengeance before the tale is through. I.e. you are sympathetic for the protagonist and resentful of the villain, for good reason, and the story unfolds with the reader thus emotionally involved. Yet I don't think that is what happens in Westeros. None of the female characters have anything to do with the "First Night." In fact, the concept of the First Night here appears to be introduced solely as a way of explaining where they might find more suitable dragon riders, because they needed Targaryen bastards for that. It could have simply be written in as this, "On such a small island as Dragonstone, the young bloods frequented the same tavern time and again and have fathered a long line of bastards on willing wenches, leaving a thick streak of dragon blood flowing through the veins of the isolated population," or such. Yet Martin went for the First Night approach instead.

The main difference between the idea of the First Night as it is written in the Princess and the Queen and the plot line I wrote just above, of a protagonist who suffers rape, is the way the maester in Wetseros told it has us believe the maids were grateful for the rape, where as in the other example where she kills the raper, it is made quite clear that women do not enjoy rape. I get it, it is written from the point of view of a maester, not Martin himself, but I think it is a clear example where Martin slipped in his writing, failing to make something clear.

What is never really explained is why the First Night exists anyway. My guess would be, the Andals introduced it to put an end to the claims that Westeros belonged to the First Men. By lacing the First Men with Andal blood, you lessen the racism exhibited in future generations, obviously, making them more sympathetic and accepting of their new rulers. This explanation neither explains why the Targaryens came to practice it nor why it has been allowed to continue for so long however. Without offering such an explanation, Martin has left "open to speculation" one of the most deplorable acts in his fantasy world. As I said, I think he let it slip a bit.

He made it clear that the Maester thought the maids were grateful. Perhaps the Maester is just in denial? If the Targs are the hand that feeds him, he may just have spent a lifetime mentally convincing himself that it's all good?

Or, It could be just be there to generate controversy for the story, to hype it up. No such thing as bad press, visibility equals credibility and all that. The masses love to hate, as much as they love to love.

meh, I don't get why people sugar coat the kind of writing GRRM does anyway. His characters are well realised, his plots complicated and his delivery often surprising - but he writes from a consistently masculine perspective and there is a certain fetish element that lacks any intellectual value in ASoIaF. It's not as bad as John Norman got with the Gor series, though it does feel very much like focussing on some female characters in a David Gemmell/Robert E Howard world.

[Pod The Impaler]

Needless to say, commoners generally do not believe the claims of divinity made by the ruling class and take offence to having their maids raped on account of divine right.

Well, this is perhaps the wrong point - the commoners (at least on Dragonstone) do believe in the divinity or near-divinity of those with Valyrian blood.

Of course it's horrible in any other (realistic) context, but I would not put it past the uneducated common folk to assume the "divine right" is personified in their Valyrian / Targaryen masters. They're mortal, but they have blood magic and ride dragons (beasts that seem to grow up to be the size of a jetliner, and breathe fire).

Do some of them not believe this is a "blessing"? Of course. But on Dragonstone, the culture is so infused with Targaryen-ness that it might as well be their local religion.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, this is perhaps the wrong point - the commoners (at least on Dragonstone) do believe in the divinity or near-divinity of those with Valyrian blood.

Is there anything to suggest this, other than the maester saying so?

[Mithras]

Is there anything to suggest this, other than the maester saying so?

I guess not.

[Maid So Fair]

I think that the style used in these novellas, with various masters recounting what they think happened makes it pretty obvious that their opinions are just that and not the objective truth. GRRM actually goes out of his way to point this out by making the maesters argue about pretty much everything of any historical significance in the narrative - the maesters are not meant to be reliable narrators. So rather than taking this as the objective truth I see it as the author having fun writing from a misogynistic mediaeval monk perspective (or the ASOIAF equivalent anyway). I don't see a reason to be outraged about it as there is absolutely no indication the author agrees. It's like getting a Ramsey POV.

[~~~~~~~~~~~~~]

Maybe its just written as yet another way to confuse or confound as to whom was fathered by whom?

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

You are not the only one to feel that way, trust me.

It's basically telling the smallfolk how lucky they are to be raped (or have their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, etc. be raped) by the godly Targaryens. I also have to wonder if the "muted" response on Dragonstone came not from feeling "honored" but rather from "fear of getting straight-up murdered by dragonfire if you refused." It is extremely disgusting and I'm surprised there wasn't a stronger response to it in the readership, although I know several people who had a similar wave of disgust hit them.

I chalk it up to being an affectation of the maester, as in, this isn't GRRM's attitude but rather viewpoint of the guy writing the story down in-world, who has an interest in propagating 1. the superiority of the Targaryens and 2. their "right" to have sexual access to whomever they want.

As for whether it actually happened historically, the interesting answer is that it doesn't look like it.

Not sure if I entirely agree. Peasants in westeros are used to getting fucked over by the nobility; forced to fight in war, poor wages, high rent, high taxes, no freedom, limited protection from brigands/enemy (or sometimes even friendly) armies et cetera. I expect that if it was considered a duty of lowborn women to offer up their virginities to their lords/king/princes then most of them would simply get on with it. Many of them (still more than in the nobility due to greater marital freedom) aren't getting married for love, and most of them don't expect to.

My point is, as horrible as it is, especially from a modern perspective, in a medieval feudal society this really isn't worst than any of what the smallfolk go through, and if they have a chance of real benefit from it, not only in terms of money, but in that their children (with their husbands) will be half-siblings to those of royal blood (even if it is bastard).

As for Targaryen "godhood", when they actually rode dragons I see how the idea of it might propagate throughout the uneducated masses; they ride huge, flying, reptilian WMD's, something that non-Targaryens can't do; are, in general, described as inhumanly beautiful, and are the most powerful family in the world.

It's easy for someone living in the first world, following the social changes of the 20th century, to be disgusted by this, but if it makes the difference between your children getting 2 and 3 meals a day, or whether you wear decent clothes or rags not fit for purpose, then I see how many people would see it as a good thing.

[ChillyPolly]

While I certainly think there is SOME truth to the claim that GRRM does not (fully) share the casually-misogynistic perspectives of the various personas he adopts in his fiction, that explanation tends to wear a little thin after a while. Yes, George, I get it. The Maester is just kissing the butts of the a-holes then in power. George himself has plausible deniability. George still does this sort of thing far too often, and the effect is a bit soul-searing.

And if we cannot trust the Maesters, what then? Is it all crap? Maybe the Good Queen did not really have all that much to do with banning First Night after all. Maybe the influence of the Faith of the Seven was far more important in restraining this ancient practice of the First Men, and the Targ conquest led to its resurgence.

And no. I don't buy the explanation that GRRM is just paying tribute the idea of medieval realism. Not when even a relatively decent character, like Davos, thinks of every other female he encounters as a "whore" rather than a "woman".

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Yes. First night is bad no matter how hot the Lords are. For the Maester to say that the common folk 'loved it' or were 'honored by it' doesn't sound right, and I doubt they did. NO one wants to get raped on their wedding night by someone else, even if it's by Chris Hemsworth ( I guess).

LIke the only good thing that could come from it, is if years after the First Night you have a Targaryen boy who the lords want to up-jump into a high -position, but that still does not mean it is anything that should happen at all. I dont buy into the whole 'all bastards are evil' line, but a whole island full of the product of rapes sounds terrible. Nettles seems to be the only one who might have been a half-way decent person. (but who know really, given the Maester telling)

[ChillyPolly]

Is there anything to suggest this, other than the maester saying so?

Interesting question. But it begs another question: Why on earth should we buy "The World of Ice and Fire"? Is it not an entire book of maester say-so?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Interesting question. But it begs another question: Why on earth should we buy "The World of Ice and Fire"? Is it not an entire book of maester say-so?

Yeah I think we have to believe most of what is being said, or else what is the point?

[SeanF]

Ser Arthur Hightower,

Ius prima nocte seems to be an urban legend. It's one of those things that everyone "knows" to be true about medieval society, like no-one washing, the existence of chastity belts, medieval parents not caring about the deaths of their children, that turns out not be the case, on examination.

That's not to say there weren't plenty of upper class men who regarded lower class women as being fair game for seduction or rape.

[ChillyPolly]

Yeah I think we have to believe most of what is being said, or else what is the point?

Money? Selling books?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure GRRM and his co-conspirators intend to sneak in some real clues among all the disinformation. But whether we the reader will have any way of telling the true facts from the deliberate misinformation is an open question.

In any event, if you are right, then the OP can hardly be blamed for taking the text at face value ... and taking offense at it.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Money? Selling books?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure GRRM and his co-conspirators intend to sneak in some real clues among all the disinformation. But whether we the reader will have any way of telling the true facts from the deliberate misinformation is an open question.

In any event, if you are right, then the OP can hardly be blamed for taking the text at face value ... and taking offense at it.

Yeah I agree with the OP that First night is offensive and terrible. I hate that the Targs did that :(

But I accept these stories as 90% fact. Some of the details could be wrong, but if people really are going to discount the entire history book then there is no reason to even discuss it with them.

[Jaak]

"Indeed, until the reign of King Jaehaerys and Good Queen Alysanne, the ancient law of the first night had prevailed on Dragonstone, as it did throughout Westeros, whereby it was the right of a lord to bed any maiden in his domain upon her wedding night. Though this custom was greatly resented elsewhere in the Seven Kingdoms, by men of a jealous temperament who did not grasp the honor being conferred upon them, such feelings were muted upon Dragonstone, where Targaryens were rightly regarded as being closer to gods than the common run of men. Here, brides thus blessed upon their wedding nights were envied, and the children born of such unions were esteemed above all others, for the Lords of Dragonstone oft celebrated the birth of such with lavish gifts of gold and silk and land to the mother."

The above is pulled out of the novella in Dangerous Women. Does anyone else find it a little disturbing? I am having trouble deciding whether it is just bad writing or mine own misinterpretation. The novella is written from the point of view of a maester. So technically the above is his point of view, which means he can say just about anything and it is okay, because it's just his own point of view. What disturbs me is the entire novella is generally intended to be taken as "matter of fact." It is meant to be written in neutrality. So basically, that means lords raping the commonfolk maidens on their wedding night is an honor? Disturbing that such a paragraph can be pulled out of a book titled "Dangerous Women," I wouldn't have flinched if the title was "Meek Trollops," but it isn't.

Needless to say, commoners generally do not believe the claims of divinity made by the ruling class and take offence to having their maids raped on account of divine right. It is obviously going to be forced, rape, as no woman wants another man on her wedding night, that is delusional.

That much is an exaggeration. Remember that in a feudal society, lords and their sons are the main stars/celebrities around. Oh, sure, there are entertainers, and they do get a few groupies... like Mathis Rowan´s daughter, who hauled Dareon into her window naked, or Podrick Payne´s mother who ran away with a singer. But the entertainers in Westeros don´t generally enjoy the kind of wealth or prestige available to them in 21st century. See how Marillion resorts to sexual harassment because the girls he wants don´t fall on her neck.

Lords are stars, basically the only stars, but this does not mean that every woman is a groupie. And jus primae noctis is not an institution well suited to bring together willing groupies with the lords they admire. For it is triggered by the fact of marriage and exercised at the initiative of the lord. It is therefore inconvenient to ascertain in advance the opinion of the bride and her prospective groom.

I´ve heard of a number of squires who kept lowborn mistresses and went on to marry them off, and provide the family with land or a cushy job. But that was often grooms who knew in advance they were going to get a secondhand bride, and decided the dowry was worth it.

It is possible that the few generations of Targaryens might have established a good reputation for rewarding the brides well, compared to majority of lords who just relied on their right and did not feel they owed any reward. But even if this was the case, some grooms might have felt jealous, and some brides unwilling either herself, or for fear of her groom´s jealousy.

Also: who is entitled to receive jus primae noctis? Because the Lord would have been middle-aged or elderly much of the time. Presumably the young and physically attractive stars like Rhaegaer/young Robert/Renly would have drawn more groupies than an elder like Hugh Hefner or late Walder Frey... but not all brides would have been groupies of even the youths. And much of the time, the young Targaryens would have been princes to whom jus primae noctis was not owed (because it was to their living father or grandfather).

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Ser Arthur Hightower,

Ius prima nocte seems to be an urban legend. It's one of those things that everyone "knows" to be true about medieval society, like no-one washing, the existence of chastity belts, medieval parents not caring about the deaths of their children, that turns out not be the case, on examination.

That's not to say there weren't plenty of upper class men who regarded lower class women as being fair game for seduction or rape.

I was referring to the first night practise within the context of the book, I know it was (in most cases) not real.

My point was that if it was part of the culture and an expected custom that women (or at least the attractive ones) would have to have sex with their social superiors on their wedding nights, then in general the women would just accept it, and be pretty happy if they did get a child from a Targaryen, because for a peasant material need comes before pride.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Ser Arthur Hightower,

Ius prima nocte seems to be an urban legend. It's one of those things that everyone "knows" to be true about medieval society, like no-one washing, the existence of chastity belts, medieval parents not caring about the deaths of their children, that turns out not be the case, on examination.

It did happen, until the 20th Century, in Latin America. Sadly. Maybe Spaniards brought the myth here and people bought if :dunno:

[Ser Not Appearing]

Who says the maester isn't a turd?

The master's POV is his own and I don't have much trouble believing he is a flawed man and that his imperfections might come through in his writings.

[ChillyPolly]

Historically, the "right of first night" may have existed, but there is very little evidence of it outside the writings of those who disapproved of it. This has given rise to the idea that it existed solely as propaganda against political enemies, or against prior regimes since overthrown. Which does not necessarily prove that it never happened. But there was probably never a time when it had general acceptance.

It is conceivable that it appears in the same context in ASOIAF. We have a pro-Targ maester kissing Targ butt, and claiming that the godly Targs put a stop to this corrupt practice of the pre-Targ regime, but of course that it was okay whenever the Targs did it.

That view may be too simplistic. Surely there were abuses of power before the conquest, but seem just as certain that the "Faith of the Seven" was already frowning on the "right of first night". And, if we can take certain hints, it may be that Queen Alysanne did not entirely put a stop to abuses of power, when Kings and Lords chose to abuse it. May not King Aerys have taken certain liberties with Tywin's wife?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

While I certainly think there is SOME truth to the claim that GRRM does not (fully) share the casually-misogynistic perspectives of the various personas he adopts in his fiction, that explanation tends to wear a little thin after a while. Yes, George, I get it. The Maester is just kissing the butts of the a-holes then in power. George himself has plausible deniability. George still does this sort of thing far too often, and the effect is a bit soul-searing.

And if we cannot trust the Maesters, what then? Is it all crap? Maybe the Good Queen did not really have all that much to do with banning First Night after all. Maybe the influence of the Faith of the Seven was far more important in restraining this ancient practice of the First Men, and the Targ conquest led to its resurgence.

And no. I don't buy the explanation that GRRM is just paying tribute the idea of medieval realism. Not when even a relatively decent character, like Davos, thinks of every other female he encounters as a "whore" rather than a "woman".

LOL You do realize, don't you, that GRRM created not only the Maesters, the Targs, and various other assholes, but also.....those saintly Faith practitioners of The Almighty Seven, right? Eh, maybe it's the grace of a good god coming through George to give us the high morals of The Seven, inspite of himself?