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

[ChillyPolly]

But not as many lords as before.

Perhaps. A good king or queen who makes effort to restrain a certain practice may prevent a few instances of it. The same is true of any crime or abuse, such as rape.

A Targaryen was the first to step up and declare it wrong.

I am reluctant to believe this, because it makes no sense on any level. Am I really supposed to believe that no-one in the Faith of the Seven, even the occasional fanatic ready to die for his faith, ever stood up and told a Lord he was being wicked for preying on young girls to whom he was not married? Everything we have been shown about the Faith indicates they are (by some standards) prudish, believing in monogamy, like the historical Catholic Church.

If I am really supposed to believe it is that simple as "everyone thought it was okay until Alisanne decided otherwise", then I call it bad writing.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

Oh totally, First Night was practiced by many many northerners, still happening on Skagos and by the Boltons and Umbers right?

The Targs did not invent "First Night' It was already a custom in Westeros when they got there. So yeah all this shit about demigods is totally incorrect, they were just following the custom of the land they lived in. The Northerners are the ones who have really kept the practice going. It would stand to reason that some Starks are guilty of it at some point as well (being from the North).

It is a terrible practice and it sucks that the Targaryens did it on Dragonstone, there is no excuse for anyone who did it, but as usual, posters want to make out like no one is guilty except the Targaryens....., but like you said, Jaehaerys and Alysanne are the ones who eventually outlawed it, so obviously not all of them felt it was a great custom. And they outlawed it in all of Westeros after it had been the custom for possibly eons.

LOL Roose calling Alysanne a shrew for outlawing it was quite interesting. It's so difficult to see A Roose upset at the illegality of his First Night desires. Then again, perhaps Ramsey's existance has finally made the point to him? I'm not so sure how much I believe Roose about who does and doesn't still practice this, but I agree, it seems that there is a time in Westeros history that leaves all nobles in a questionable situation as far as this is concerned. I do think the main reason the Targs are being concentrated on in this thread, though, is because of The Princess and The Queen and the Maester concentrating on the population of Dragonstone. I agree, Jaeharys and Alysanne deserve all the credit for ending it, regardless of The Rooseman's disappointment.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Why do you assume they all felt the same? Clearly they didn't as a Targaryen was the first to step up an abolish the practice.

Because that was the argument. "(All) the Targaryen women would speak up" or the like.

[ChillyPolly]

The fact that Alysanne and Jaehaerys abolished First Night did not come from TRP or TPATQ it came from D&E, The Sworn Sword, Which was not written by a 'pro-Targ' maester. So we know 100% that is an accurate fact.

But that's not what I was contesting. What I was contesting was the idea was that everyone and their mother thought it was 100% okay before Alysanne decided to do something about it.

I was also doubting that Targs generally (as opposed to Alysanne specifically) were more opposed to the practice than the Andals who preceded them. This practice is ascribed to the First Men (not the Andals), and does not seem to accord with the principals of the Faith of the Seven.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Uh, 150 years of pro-Targ history writing after the fact, in a very Targ-liking group?

100% that ain't.

I have no idea what you mean by this, are you saying none of the short stories are accurate? Not even D&E? Who is this 'Targ-liking group' that wrote the D&E stories? I always thought GRRM wrote them,......

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Not very convinced of it.

You read the link I put above? It has existed in Spain and Latin America.

[RoamingRonin]

Perhaps. A good king or queen who makes effort to restrain a certain practice may prevent a few instances of it. The same is true of any crime or abuse, such as rape.

There's no "perhaps". It used to be a fairly common practice now it's a backwater type of thing.

I am reluctant to believe this, because it makes no sense on any level. Am I really supposed to believe that no-one in the Faith of the Seven, even the occasional fanatic ready to die for his faith, ever stood up and told a Lord he was being wicked for preying on young girls to whom he was not married? Everything we have been shown about the Faith indicates they are (by some standards) prudish, believing in monogamy, like the historical Catholic Church.

If I am really supposed to believe it is that simple as "everyone thought it was okay until Alisanne decided otherwise", then I call it bad writing.

If the faith had a huge problem with it then it wouldn't exist and/or we would have heard about the fights against it. When the Targaryens land in Westeros it's obviously still a thing so I don't know what you're arguing. There might have been someone to stand against it but no king ever declared it illegal in all the years it was practiced. The first to do so was a Targaryen.

Call it bad writing.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

But that's not what I was contesting. What I was contesting was the idea was that everyone and their mother thought it was 100% okay before Alysanne decided to do something about it.

I was also doubting that Targs generally (as opposed to Alysanne specifically) were more opposed to the practice than the Andals who preceded them. This practice is ascribed to the First Men (not the Andals), and does not seem to accord with the principals of the Faith of the Seven.

oh ok, Well I definitely doubt any of the common folk were really 'ok' with it. It was only the 'lords' who were ok with it, that's for sure, I agree with you. I mean the custom was not put in place by a populus vote, it is absolutely a custom only kept in practice by the lords.

It is a terrible custom to be sure, most of us can totally agree on that, and anyone, lord or person who practiced it was doing something really gross, Targ or Andal or whoever.

And yeah I also agree that the Targaryens were not more opposed to it than anyone else, Alysanne/Jaehaerys specifically were, but not the Targaryen family as a whole.

I think we were just trying to make the point that the Targs did not start the practice in Westeros nor were they the only people practiced it by any means. They are equally guilty of keeping it up on Dragonstone to be sure :(

But hardly alone in who should be blamed. This thread is specific about TPATQ, but posters should be careful who they 'hate and condemn forever' because many many other families are also guilty.

[SeanF]

If you go to Schloss Neuschwanstein, there's a picture of Ius Prima Nocte.

A peasant is weeping with grief as a smirking lord drags off his grief-stricken bride. A priest is sternly wagging his finger at the peasant, no doubt warning him that there's nothing he can do.

But, this is just a piece of political propaganda.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

LOL Roose calling Alysanne a shrew for outlawing it was quite interesting. It's so difficult to see A Roose upset at the illegality of his First Night desires. Then again, perhaps Ramsey's existance has finally made the point to him? I'm not so sure how much I believe Roose about who does and doesn't still practice this, but I agree, it seems that there is a time in Westeros history that leaves all nobles in a questionable situation as far as this is concerned. I do think the main reason the Targs are being concentrated on in this thread, though, is because of The Princess and The Queen and the Maester concentrating on the population of Dragonstone. I agree, Jaeharys and Alysanne deserve all the credit for ending it, regardless of The Rooseman's disappointment.

Right :) Cool, We are in agreement.

[ChillyPolly]

If the faith had a huge problem with it then it wouldn't exist and/or we would have heard about the fights against it.

This is a standard "argument from ignorance". We don't know much about it, therefore whatever Roaming Ronin says must be true. Because of course, GRRM has already published a 50-volume encyclopedia of Westeros covering every subject under the sun in exhaustive detail, allowing us to be sure that if Roaming Ronin is wrong, GRRM would have explicitly said so.

When the Targaryens land in Westeros it's obviously still a thing so I don't know what you're arguing.

When the Targs landed in Westeros, there were Seven Kingdoms, each with their own customs and practices. The Targs apparently liked the custom and practice of "right of first night", practiced it themselves, and did not forbid others from doing it. For a time, this became the law of the land, which was united as one kingdom for the first time in history.

However, the fact that the custom is explicitly associated with the First Men (and not with the Andals) implies that this was not universal practice before the Targaryen conquest. Also, the practice continues to be associated with the North even after Alysanne's ban.

There might have been someone to stand against it but no king ever declared it illegal in all the years it was practiced. The first to do so was a Targaryen.

This makes sense only if it is applied in the context of the united kingdom of Westeros. But this kingdom only existed for maybe 50 years or so before Queen Alyssanne decided to act.

Call it bad writing.

I certainly will. But first, you must show that GRRM actually wrote it.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I have no idea what you mean by this, are you saying none of the short stories are accurate? Not even D&E? Who is this 'Targ-liking group' that wrote the D&E stories? I always thought GRRM wrote them,......

PoV structure. PoV bias. Or do you assume GRRM agrees with Cersei for example?

If you go to Schloss Neuschwanstein, there's a picture of Ius Prima Nocte.

A peasant is weeping with grief as a smirking lord drags off his grief-stricken bride. A priest is sternly wagging his finger at the peasant, no doubt warning him that there's nothing he can do.

But, this is just a piece of political propaganda.

Neuschwanstein? The "castle" build about 1870 by a crazy bavarian monarch as his private Disneyland a la faux Medieval? Good source.

[SeanF]

BBE, that's why I said the painting was "political propaganda". A fanciful 19th century view of how awful medieval life was.

Obviously it's not a real medieval castle.

[ChillyPolly]

Neuschwanstein? The "castle" build about 1870 by a crazy bavarian monarch as his private Disneyland a la faux Medieval? Good source.

Sarcasm unnecessary. No-one claimed it was a good source. The words used were "just a piece of political propaganda".

[mediterraneo]

I would like to point the attention at the relationship of exploitation that this referred use enlights.

It is treated, both by perpetrators and victims, as a normal fact of life. Maybe not the best part of it, like death or illness. But you don't protest against death, it is a fact of life.

This fact of life appears to be part of the lives of the commoners in Westeros, part of the dues to pay, in work, in money, in products, in submission to the lords. Any lord, any feudatary, landed knight, Lord, up to the King.

It is part of being poor to be witness of this. It is part of being a poor woman to be direct victim of this. Probably to the point that you would be scoff at if the lord for some reason didn't do it on you. "She is so ugly that her lord didn't want her".
In this situation of utter submission and violence, I'm not sure of the mechanisms people would put together to psicologically cope with the suffering.
The same poverty adds another layer. It is possible that the benefits (to the clan) given by the lord in addition to the rape could be an important improvement to the family economy. Something needed to try not to lose another children this winter.
I can imagine the elders and the other women, having been raped in turn in their day, putting pressure on the young "not to be stupid and egoist" and "do it good, he must be happy after that". "Be sure to get pregnant!".

On the other side of the situation, the lords, men and women. The lords who enjoy freedom from poverty, the lords which are judged with a different set of laws and of morals. The lords that are expected to be efficient killers in everyday life, to be able to serve adecuately their own lord. The lords that are constantly expected to rule and to judge the commoners' lives and deeds, both in a moral and in a legal way.
They are sure that they are not the same thing. They know it.
It is "normal" that young men are "a bit exuberant". It is almost expected. "That's why you should keep your women safe at home". These are young men educated to a culture of violence, thaught to take what they want with the right of their arms. I can perfectly understand that they end up feeling right with rape. Calling it seduction. Not only saying, but also thinking that "she agreed to it" if she wasn't fast enough to escape their hunt.
And I can see the women of their class to understand that as a typical, maybe non too desirable but totally understandable behaviour for a real man, a real warrior. For the kind of man that will guarantee them a florent future, for the kind of man that, like thier father, will get to rule the land as a Leviathan, fearing only other peers of him from other lands. And while demonstrating their social virtues, they also get to demonstrate that they do are fertile, which is important too.
I don't see any solidarity coming from the ladies, neither.
As long as the thing doesnt happen with a fellow noble lady, it is not a menace, and it is not a crime, nor something immoral. Surely better than wanking themselves.
Once if you get to justify wide-scale rape in this situation... With violence, hits and armed friends laughing, scoffing and witnessing it in the wait for their turn, maybe beating any intervening men of the girl's family or killing, if the serf resists too much. Once you get to live in this kind of situaton, in this kind of society... It is easy to understand that resisting is not an option, and is thus probably avoided. Why to end up losing three teeth too?
And once you get to that state of utter despair (literally, lack of hope) it is understandable that the fact of being invited in the lord's "palace" and bedchamber, to be take in clean sheets... It can be represented, to their eyes, as not that bad.

What I am trying to say is that it is difficult to understand how and why people living in material situations radically different from our ones end up doing, thinking, accepting, believing, and educating their children to accept... The purest forms of horror.

Welcome to Westeros, and to his characters.
"Your father, is a killer..."

[Suzanna Stormborn]

PoV structure. PoV bias. Or do you assume GRRM agrees with Cersei for example?

Um ok, So you are saying that Jaehaerys and Alysanne did not in fact pass a law abolishing First Night because Dunk is a Targaryen supporter?

I'm sorry but if we all follow your line of reasoning then there is absolutely no point to this forum; none of the books are accurate, all of the history and stories are told by liars, so what is the purpose of any discussion?

By your logic, any northerner who talks about the Starks cannot be trusted because they are obviously Stark bias, so that would include Jon, he also cannot be trusted with any facts about the North that he gives Stannis because he has an obvious Stark/North bias..... no Dornish person can be trusted when speaking of the Martells, it would go on and on.

No I completely disagree with everything you're saying, sorry, this theory doesn't fly with me, Some POV's tell some lies sure, but we can hardly conclude that every POV is a complete falsehood and a lie.

[The King in Black]

Untirely unrelated but can anyone who has read WOIAF tell me why do the Boltons flay?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

BBE, that's why I said the painting was "political propaganda". A fanciful 19th century view of how awful medieval life was.

Obviously it's not a real medieval castle.

Ok, that's good. Because I do have encountered people taking Neuschwanstein for a real medieval castle with a purpose beyond romantic imaginations.

Um ok, So you are saying that Jaehaerys and Alysanne did not in fact pass a law abolishing First Night because Dunk is a Targaryen supporter?

I'm sorry but if we all follow your line of reasoning then there is absolutely no point to this forum; none of the books are accurate, all of the history and stories are told by liars, so what is the purpose of any discussion?

By your logic, any northerner who talks about the Starks cannot be trusted because they are obviously Stark bias, so that would include Jon, he also cannot be trusted with any facts about the North that he gives Stannis because he has an obvious Stark/North bias..... no Dornish person can be trusted when speaking of the Martells, it would go on and on.

No I completely disagree with everything you're saying, sorry, this theory doesn't fly with me, Some POV's tell some lies sure, but we can hardly conclude that every POV is a complete falsehood and a lie.

Of course they abolished it. They did pass a law on it.

But I'm not as sure as you that it was widespread or even legally allowed earlier or just a nasty custom a minority of authority-abusing Lords engaged in.

Untirely unrelated but can anyone who has read WOIAF tell me why do the Boltons flay?

Only theories. The most prevalent is related to the Starks being skinchangers and the Boltons literally "changing one's skin", either as a mockery or trying to emulate their magic.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Perhaps. A good king or queen who makes effort to restrain a certain practice may prevent a few instances of it. The same is true of any crime or abuse, such as rape.

I am reluctant to believe this, because it makes no sense on any level. Am I really supposed to believe that no-one in the Faith of the Seven, even the occasional fanatic ready to die for his faith, ever stood up and told a Lord he was being wicked for preying on young girls to whom he was not married? Everything we have been shown about the Faith indicates they are (by some standards) prudish, believing in monogamy, like the historical Catholic Church.

If I am really supposed to believe it is that simple as "everyone thought it was okay until Alisanne decided otherwise", then I call it bad writing.

You might say the same of the Catholic church and prostitution, they disapproved of it, of course, and condemned it a few times, but mostly they simply allowed it, because attempting to ban it would be ineffective, I would assume the same applies here.

[SeanF]

We should distinguish between upper-class young men seducing attractive lower-class young women ,perhaps paying them for sex, or giving them gifts, or giving them financial support for their children; masters expecting sex from their maids. That's as old as history.

And, the legal right to rape a virgin on her wedding night. That's Ius Prima Nocte, which is a myth, at least in Western Europe.