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

[Lady Fevre Dream]

1. Wallace was from the Lowlands. Kilts were Highlander.

2. The kilts in the movie are completely messed-up.

3. The kilts in the movie were not actually the kilts people used to wear in the Jacobite Risings.

4. Woad was Caledonian (and Gaulish). Caledonians had been extinct for a thousand years by then. Besides, the Wallace family was originally Normanized Welsh who moved into Scotland as a result of the Davidian Revolution.

It was like Tecumseh (the Shawnee chieftain) wearing a T-shirt and jeans, only that he's wearing T-shirt backwards and the jeans upside-down. And on top of that, he's wearing an Inca crown.

This reminds me of a documentary I watched that points out the supposed sword of William Wallace on display is.....all wrong. I have to admit, Scottish history is not my strong suit, but it is interesting.

I think Tecumseh is one of the most interesting figures in early American and Native American history, it's a shame his name is more associated with Sherman.

OT---Agreed! When BH came out I loved him, but now I have no desire to watch any of his movies.

um

Not only does Mel presence just ruin all his good movies, I've come to see that Braveheart in many ways was just a precusor to his Passion. I do think GRRM put First Night thanks to the fact that it is referenced in other fiction if not always believed, and specifically, for the Ramsey conception and for all the 'dragon seeds' around Dragonstone. Ironically, many pick Nettles to be the one most likely not to be a seed, but I can't help but think of The Black Pearl and wonder why.....Nettles is the one always ruled out, regardless of her having the sense to feed a dragon first.

Lost some of your post, sorry, LOL

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I wasn't a fan of this. It made me pretty anti targ. It's hard to respect the Targ's in a sense. I mean you have in one hand some good individuals but on the other hand you have a ton of jerks, monsters, and crazies. Jon Snow for example is good right now- but I am just waiting for him to develop some targ tendencies

Fortunately, he's way more Stark than Targ.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

This reminds me of a documentary I watched that points out the supposed sword of William Wallace on display is.....all wrong. I have to admit, Scottish history is not my strong suit, but it is interesting.

I think Tecumseh is one of the most interesting figures in early American and Native American history, it's a shame his name is more associated with Sherman.

Not only does Mel presence just ruin all his good movies, I've come to see that Braveheart in many ways was just a precusor to his Passion. I do think GRRM put First Night thanks to the fact that it is referenced in other fiction if not always believed, and specifically, for the Ramsey conception and for all the 'dragon seeds' around Dragonstone. Ironically, many pick Nettles to be the one most likely not to be a seed, but I can't help but think of The Black Pearl and wonder why.....Nettles is the one always ruled out, regardless of her having the sense to feed a dragon first.

Lost some of your post, sorry, LOL

Ran confirmed that you do in fact need dragonlord blood to successfully ride a dragon, so that would definitely include Nettles. :) http://asoiaf.wester...lood/?p=5914080

Yeah I think the Black Pearl and Nettles are a reference to the fact that Targaryens were not discriminate about which race they conjugated with, which is nice to know :)

[Marcus Agrippa]

Fortunately, he's way more Stark than Targ.

This is so very true- but what happens after he comes back from whatever state he is in? What happens when he learns about his parents? We know that Jon will be more or less balanced between Ice and fire. Looking at the families who are on both sides... jon has avoided a pretty big bullet with getting raised by Ned. Hell, you can say both of Jon's parents were pretty dumb people.

[ChillyPolly]

Not only does Mel presence just ruin all his good movies, I've come to see that Braveheart in many ways was just a precusor to his Passion.

An odd comment. I fail to see any connection between the two films, other than the fact that Mel directed both (and did a good job, as far as directing them went).

[Suzanna Stormborn]

This is so very true- but what happens after he comes back from whatever state he is in? What happens when he learns about his parents? We know that Jon will be more or less balanced between Ice and fire. Looking at the families who are on both sides... jon has avoided a pretty big bullet with getting raised by Ned. Hell, you can say both of Jon's parents were pretty dumb people.

IDK, we have barely had any actual info on R+L. She seems incredible to me, Rhaegar is still a big mystery, but describing them both as 'dumb' doesn't cut it.

I love NEd, but he didnt do that great of a job either, keeping massive secrets from Jon, then sending him off to the Wall for no real reason (at that point), without telling him how terrible it is up there. Then going south without leaving anything or anyone behind to tell the Jon the truth, just 'in case' something happened to him while he was in visiting hell (aka Kings Landing).

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ran confirmed that you do in fact need dragonlord blood to successfully ride a dragon, so that would definitely include Nettles. :) http://asoiaf.wester...lood/?p=5914080

Ran did nothing of the sort. He stated his own personal speculation and made damn sure that everybody would recognize it as nothing more than speculation.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Ran confirmed that you do in fact need dragonlord blood to successfully ride a dragon, so that would definitely include Nettles. :) http://asoiaf.wester...lood/?p=5914080

You sure you pasted the right link? Because here, Ran doesn't say "I talked it over with GRRM over a pint of Stark blood and here's what he revealed to me", he says "basing on the same stuff we've all read, here's what I think". All in all, a speculation, and he makes a good effort to make that clear ("I am quite convinced", "I would guess", etc.)

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Ran did nothing of the sort. He stated his own personal speculation and made damn sure that everybody would recognize it as nothing more than speculation.

You sure you pasted the right link? Because here, Ran doesn't say "I talked it over with GRRM over a pint of Stark blood and here's what he revealed to me", he says "basing on the same stuff we've all read, here's what I think". All in all, a speculation, and he makes a good effort to make that clear ("I am quite convinced", "I would guess", etc.)

Ok whatever. All evidence in the books and short stories confirm it and the leader of the forum thinks it's true, I see no reason to disagree.

[Marcus Agrippa]

IDK, we have barely had any actual info on R+L. She seems incredible to me, Rhaegar is still a big mystery, but describing them both as 'dumb' doesn't cut it.

I love NEd, but he didnt do that great of a job either, keeping massive secrets from Jon, then sending him off to the Wall for no real reason (at that point), without telling him how terrible it is up there. Then going south without leaving anything or anyone behind to tell the Jon the truth, just 'in case' something happened to him while he was in visiting hell (aka Kings Landing).

I don't think Ned could have planned that. Ned never intended Jon to sit on the throne. He promised to protect him. Sending Jon to the wall solves so many problems for ned. It lifts the burden of a secret that hurt his family. Granted, the kids loved Jon... well sansa being the soul exception. Besides that he couldn't have predicted Joffery and the kids not being Roberts. They didn't think about their actions or how anyone would react. It's typical arrogance that brought them to that point. Robert was a prick and where i could say Lyanna did the right thing from a modern perspective.... but from the stories point of view... Rhaegar and her screwed the pooch. We don't know what happened but I think it was probably a mutual deal. Lynna just wanting to get away from Robert and Rhaegar being a dumb blond.

I will say this- Rhaegar to me wasn't an intelligent person. He was a "smart" person- he read books and could play an instrument but he didn't know how the world around him worked. He didn't see that Rickard had plans beyond Aerys, Tywin, and the others. He didn't see Aerys doing anything stupid. He didn't go to Tywin personally, and the most important thing- he didn't move elia and the kids to Dorne as soon as possible.

I blame Lyanna for not telling Brandon what was up. A note would have done wonders. I think Rickard would have still rebelled- but I don't think it would have been then.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Por esas fechas, los Anales de Clonmacnoise recogen la exigencia del Derecho de Pernada por parte de gobernadores de origen vikingo: «Su líder ostenta el honor de poseer a cualquier mujer durante su primera noche de bodas; después, su propio marido podrá tener conocimiento carnal con ella».9 A pesar de lo que pueda pensarse, esta cita no puede tomarse como un juicio de valor negativo, pues en la tradición irlandesa, ciertos personajes míticos de origen céltico, considerados héroes, parecen haber disfrutado de ese mismo privilegio.

Ya en el siglo XIII encontramos las recopilaciones jurídicas de Alfonso X de Castilla en el Fuero Real, donde se indica que se impondrá una multa de 500 sueldos y se le privaría de sus cargos si osase «alguu ome desonrrar nouho casando ou nouha en dia de voda»;11 pero reservando a la corona la facultad de juzgar el crimen, lo que supone un reconocimiento tácito de que se trata de un acto cometido por miembros de algún estamento privilegiado y del corporativismo entre sus componentes.

En la Biblioteca nacional de Francia se conserva un texto datado en el año 1400, procedente de una aldea adscrita a un monasterio de Zúrich (Suiza) en la que se especifica que «...quien desee contraer sagrado matrimonio en el territorio o en la aldea de Maur, quienquiera que sea, debe entregarnos a la novia en su primera noche de bodas o pagar por ella, según rezan las costumbres tradicionales y según figura en los viejos escritos oficiales. Si no cumpliera lo prescrito, será multado con 30 peniques».8 El texto fue reescrito en 1543 para especificar las condiciones del pago: «el esposo debe dejar que su señor yazga la primera noche de bodas con la novia o, de lo contrario, pagar cinco chelines y cuatro peniques». En ambos casos se trataba de cantidades razonables para los campesinos de la aldea, especialmente en una zona que era bastante próspera en el siglo XVI.8

Oh, right... you don't speak spanish.

You should, specially those who said it was a myth and it didn't exist.

Third paragraph says:

"In France National Library, there is a text from year 1400, from a village next to a Zurich Monastery, in which is stated that "...whoever wants to marry in the lands or village of Maur, whoever might be, should deliver us the bride in her first wedding night or pay for her, according to the traditions and as it is written in the old official records. Otherwise, it will be punished with 30 pennies". The text was rewritten in 1543 to specify the pay conditions: "the husband should let his lord lay with the bride during the first night, otherwise, pay 5 shillings and 4 pennies". In both cases, it was a reasonable amount for common people, specially in a prosper region in the XVI century".

[Pib_Juju]

Did you know there's actually no evidence that Edward I, or any other medieval figure for that matter, ever instituted any such "Prima Nocte" right? It seems to be an invention of writers.

[ChillyPolly]

Oh, right... you don't speak spanish.

You should, specially those who said it was a myth and it didn't exist.

Third paragraph says:

"In France National Library, there is a text from year 1400, from a village next to a Zurich Monastery, in which is stated that "...whoever wants to marry in the lands or village of Maur, whoever might be, should deliver us the bride in her first wedding night or pay for her, according to the traditions and as it is written in the old official records. Otherwise, it will be punished with 30 pennies". The text was rewritten in 1543 to specify the pay conditions: "the husband should let his lord lay with the bride during the first night, otherwise, pay 5 shillings and 4 pennies". In both cases, it was a reasonable amount for common people, specially in a prosper region in the XVI century".

Here's an article in English discussing this source

http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Did you know there's actually no evidence that Edward I, or any other medieval figure for that matter, ever instituted any such "Prima Nocte" right? It seems to be an invention of writers.

Well, not based on the post directly above yours, as far as Swiss history goes.

[ChillyPolly]

Well, not based on the post directly above yours, as far as French history goes.

Do you mean Swiss history?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Do you mean Swiss history?

woops, yes I changed it thx :)

[ChillyPolly]

Well, not based on the post directly above yours, as far as Swiss history goes.

Except the Swiss provision was apparently, in effect, little more than a readily-affordable marriage tax. It is, at least, disputed that it was ever anything more than this, except maybe in a symbolic sense.

[RoamingRonin]

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.

This is the standard trying "to win an argument by pointing out an illogical fallacy."

When the Targs landed in Westeros, there were Seven Kingdoms, each with their own customs and practices.

It seems like you're suggesting there was no overlap in customs and practices which is extremely naive.

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.

This doesn't make any sense. The practice was popular before their arrival. The Targaryens did nothing to spread it. They joined in. That's all.

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.

The text suggests otherwise:

"The maesters will tell you that King Jaehaerys abolished the lord’s right to the first night to appease his shrewish queen, but where the old gods rule, old customs linger."

This says that the custom was widespread before the ban. The northerners considered themselves above the law and continued the practice because they were not like the Andals.

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.

It was Jaehaerys, not Alysanne. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're arguing here? We've never heard of a ban before the Targaryens arrived. It's like your banking solely on probability. Cite a source or concede.

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

You haven't shown me not one bit of proof while I've given you several examples to back up my arguments.

[Mal Malenkirk]

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. And I only know of a few instances in history where the first night existed, such as in Scotland where Longshanks was trying to cement English power by lacing Scots with their blood. Obviously, the Scots rebelled because of just such things. Can anyone think of an historical example where the first night was celebrated such as is claimed here?

You know that the movie Braveheart does not count as history, right? ;) It's a rousing tale and a good movie IMO but very little in it is accurate, from the life of William Wallace down to the clothings they wear and including that famous scene where Longshank grants Prima Noctae to his nobles.

That didn't happen. There are in fact no recorded case of 'Prima Noctae' in middle-age Europe that are accepted by historians. It might have been a urban legend of sort that took root in the enlightened period, such as in post revolution France, in order to mock the previous forms of governments and glorify the current ones.

That doesn't mean that some powerful nobles did not get frisky with pretty girls, but it was more a case of might makes right on the behalf of the deviants than an actual right and I highly doubt it was done in such a high profile and sacred context as a wedding because peasants did revolt during the middleage and any sane man could tell that this would be a good pretext.

That being said, practices similar to 'first night' rights might have been practiced in other eras and regions, such as kurdish tribes according to wiki, but i'm not familiar with that.

EDIT: And reading a bit more into the thread, I see i'm late to beat that horse.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

I don't think Ned could have planned that. Ned never intended Jon to sit on the throne. He promised to protect him. Sending Jon to the wall solves so many problems for ned. It lifts the burden of a secret that hurt his family. Granted, the kids loved Jon... well sansa being the soul exception. Besides that he couldn't have predicted Joffery and the kids not being Roberts. They didn't think about their actions or how anyone would react. It's typical arrogance that brought them to that point. Robert was a prick and where i could say Lyanna did the right thing from a modern perspective.... but from the stories point of view... Rhaegar and her screwed the pooch. We don't know what happened but I think it was probably a mutual deal. Lynna just wanting to get away from Robert and Rhaegar being a dumb blond.

I will say this- Rhaegar to me wasn't an intelligent person. He was a "smart" person- he read books and could play an instrument but he didn't know how the world around him worked. He didn't see that Rickard had plans beyond Aerys, Tywin, and the others. He didn't see Aerys doing anything stupid. He didn't go to Tywin personally, and the most important thing- he didn't move elia and the kids to Dorne as soon as possible.

I blame Lyanna for not telling Brandon what was up. A note would have done wonders. I think Rickard would have still rebelled- but I don't think it would have been then.

Well most of what you are saying we really dont know what happened. For instance Lyanna could have sent a note and Brandon still just stormed down to KL.

Also Aerys was keeping Elia there as a hostage for Dorne, that was not Rhaegars choice.

Rhaegar was in the process of staging a rebellion against Aerys himself, meeting Lyanna just messed everything up.

I dont think either of them were dumb, Lyanna shows much heart, bravery and skill at the tourney and Rhaegar played the harp so beautifully it made several women cry, this does not strike me as a 'dumb' person. That's just IMHO.