Talk:Droit du seigneur

Prima nocta

This article must explain the form "prima nocta". Is it correct? Where does it come from? Etc.

For instance, dictionary.com says "The phrase prima nocta, based on the Latin “first night,” is a shortened and corrupted [form of] jus primae noctis..."

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

These expressions have an unclear origin. Visibly, it was popularized by the film Braveheart, itself apparently inspired on the legend of the Mugnaia. According to what I understood, the most known variant of this right, until the the release of that film, was a very different and eviler variant, from a nineteenth century belief. (in that variant, any lord had the right to spent any night with the wife of any of his serfs and vassals, and, obviously, have sexual relation with).

About the term prima nocta, I think it worth to be mentioned in the Terminology section.

Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

George, if you want to add a mention of "prima nocta" go ahead. The dictionary definition you give clearly states that it is an incorrect variant. No other explanation is needed. Nicolas, there is abundant evidence given in the article of belief in this "right" long beyond Braveheart and long beyond the nineteenth century.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus?

Should we say there is a "consensus" that it is a myth, or that "others" say it is a myth? I don't think that the Snopes article is a good source to say "consensus".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have adjusted this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Rape"

The view that a law is illegal – and a right granted by that law is a crime –, is a post hoc judgment of an alien culture from the background of our contemporary morality. As such, the term "rape" is not appropriate in a neutral account of a historical situation and I would vote to replace it with a less judgmental term, at least in the definition section in the beginning of the article. If necessary, a section in the body of the article could cite sources viewing the droit du seigneur as rape. In no case should the authors of the article express their own views of the subject. 2003:DF:972C:2971:F4DD:52D:44F5:274B (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored to what it was before it was recently changed. I think the problem is that if the law existed it would mean that the sexual intercourse wasn't rape.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

I do not think that Encyclopedia Britannica should be cited. 71.34.90.127 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Article description of Droit du seignor contains incorrect information that needs to be removed. Attempts to correct this were reverted, despite the banality of the error.

Article reads: "A majority of historians have concluded that the idea is a myth, and that all references to it are from later periods. Over the centuries, it became commonly portrayed in European literature as a practice that had occurred in earlier times or other places. In practice, it may have been the feudal lords using their power and influence over serfs to sexually exploit the women free of consequences, as opposed to a legitimate legal right."

There is no citation for this bizarre opinion and no reason to include it. This "majority of historians" is an invented number, the 'conclusion' and 'myth' are descriptions of a theory, not based in fact. This entire paragraph is harmful and misleading and has nothing to do with the rest of the subject and theme of the article. Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The expansion on this, along with the sourcing, appears further in the article body under the section Debate in the 19th and 20th centuries. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No accurate sources listed in the body of the article state that there is a consensus among historians. The paragraph is self contradicting because it states that "European Literature" is the source, which is where the "majority of historians" get their information from; as there is no other source for medieval history that could legitimize the hypothesis that Droit du seigneur is a myth.

Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Jusprimaenoctis, you have repeatedly marked your removal of this content as a "minor edit", which is defined as "one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Removing a whole paragraph is never a minor edit unless it's obvious vandalism. Marking it as minor twice after being reverted by others is blatantly wrong, since it is clearly under dispute. This does not reflect well on you, and may lead to sanctions.

This procedural violation is independent of whether your substantive claims are correct. --Macrakis (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Macrakis, thank you for pointing out the procedural violation. Rest assured I'll make no further attempts to remove incorrect information, as it just gets reverted back to the established misinformation. Jusprimaenoctis (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, welcome! This article certainly could be improved (as can many articles). If you believe that there is no consensus among historians, then find some reasonably recent article in a respectable journal that says so. Start by improving the "Debate in the 19th and 20th centuries" section, which is currently a mess. Is there in fact an ongoing debate? Or is the matter more or less settled one way or the other? Of course historians work from older sources, but they also have methods for comparing and cross-checking and validating claims. Wikipedia starts from the modern scholarly literature, and doesn't try to work directly from primary sources. --Macrakis (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Jusprimaenoctis: We don't go by your personal opinion of which sources are "accurate" since we go by the views of professional historians. The body text gives an overview of scholarly opinion on the subject (both pro and con) and points out that after 19th century historians debunked the idea, subsequent support was usually based on anthropological studies of tribal societies with no possible relevance to medieval European practice, hence the idea has no evidence to back it up. The current text may not be written or organized very well but nonetheless it gives the gist of the subject. GBRV (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)