feuing conditions query

[BobsYourUncle]

The balance of historical opinion seems to be that no such "right of first night", "prima noctis" or "droit de seigneur" ever existed--at least so far as would entitle a feudal superior to have sex with the bride on her wedding night. Feudal lords had many rights as against those who were vassals and villeins, but those rights had to do with property, labor and military service, i.e. knights, or tacksmen obliged to fight for their superior.

Despite the lack of any historical evidence that such a practice existed, the concept and myth has persisted in popular culture for centuries. A good summary of the myth and its propogation can be found in the Wikipedia entry, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur .
The entry has some interesting citations, including this entertaining and informative article, entitled The Straight Dope: Did medieval lords have "right of the first night" with the local brides?: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...e-local-brides

Short answer: No.

[macwilkin]

The balance of historical opinion seems to be that no such "right of first night", "prima noctis" or "droit de seigneur" ever existed--at least so far as would entitle a feudal superior to have sex with the bride on her wedding night. Feudal lords had many rights as against those who were vassals and villeins, but those rights had to do with property, labor and military service, i.e. knights, or tacksmen obliged to fight for their superior.

Despite the lack of any historical evidence that such a practice existed, the concept and myth has persisted in popular culture for centuries. A good summary of the myth and its propogation can be found in the Wikipedia entry, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur .
The entry has some interesting citations, including this entertaining and informative article, entitled The Straight Dope: Did medieval lords have "right of the first night" with the local brides?: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...e-local-brides

Short answer: No.

See the Charlton Heston movie "The War Lord" for an interesting take on the whole prima noctis myth.

T.

[BobsYourUncle]

See the Charlton Heston movie "The War Lord" for an interesting take on the whole prima noctis myth.

T.

You have piqued my interest, sir. Off to the library tomorrow to take that one out...

[macwilkin]

You have piqued my interest, sir. Off to the library tomorrow to take that one out...

Good luck; to my knowledge, it is not on DVD. I have a copy on VHS.

It is based on a play entitled "The Lovers".

T.

[skauwt]

this was the reply given last night thanks to the input yesterday


Re: Walter Chisholme 14th conundrum
Reply #26 - Yesterday at 23:51:21 Thank you Scott, thats an excellent and rapid response you have obtained.
The General Register of Sasines is now part of the National Archives. I would have hoped that the earlier historians of the clan have established whether there exists a Sasine for the lands of Chisholme. The records will be thin prior to 1617, and Drumlanrigs superiorty predates that so it will be touch ang go whether there is something on the feu charter between Drumlanrig and Chisholme... might be something as the Historians know of the loss of Chisholme in those years when Chisholme and Scott supported the young King against his tutors, and the fact that Drumlanrig restored Chisholme to their lands.
However this event, under study is a century or so later. And we know of at least three documents which may be relevant,, and they are listed in the xls, 2 of them in the Archives at NLS, and one is a record of the Privy Council. All three of these documents should be viewed if we are to throw any fiurther light on the loss of the Chisholme estates in the 1600's.
Waht we have are two conflicting stories, bioth coming from the same secondary source, Burkes, but different editions of Burkes. Of the two theories I feel that the Royalist Civil War story is the weakest by far.There has not been any fact turned up to support that idea, and the whole idea itself is illogical, an ardent royalist would have supported the King in the earlier phases of the war. The second phase, where the Scots got involved and where we are told that Walter XIV participated, was where the Scots went to war not to support a Catholic King,but because they thought he would give a deal to support the reformed Scots religion.
On the other hand, the wrath of Drumlanrig version, there is a hint of something averse happening, in the Privy Council records 1633-35, long before the Civil war, and this includes a reference to Walters wife being a widow, if I recall correctlyNot much chance of Walter helping out Charles Stuart if he has been dead for that length of time, no matter how ardent a royalist he may have been.
For the helpful lawyer in Hawick, would you be able to tell him that the 5000 merks fine came about, so we are told, because Drumlanrig did not approve of Walters choice of spouse, I think a lassie named Stirling. I intoduced the "seignorial rights" element, as a Hollywood style embellishment to attract interest (it worked). More feasible might be that Drumlanrig had decided on a partner for young Walter, perhaps to one of his family or an allied family, but Walter didnt play the game. Walter may have been a young man without suitable guidance, his father having died while he was a minor.
But I think we can continue an endless run of speculation, until some facts are drawn from the sources mentioned, and add to that list a search of the General register of Sasines. While searching there, one item of current interst will be the Sasine registered 1803 concerning William Chisholme of Chisholme's wishes for the future of the Chisholme Estates. This Sasine forms the basis of the 1813 retour to Charles Chisholm. Fat hope that these Sasines will be in English or Scots Tung, most likely archaic Latin.
But it would be a wonderful execise for somebody to get to Edinburgh and dig up these vital documents