Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

LoL...has Mat realized that he is technically Perrin's "subject" now?


The Fisher King
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mat's not exactly citizen of the Two Rivers now and his only real people at this point are the Band and they are directly beholden to Elayne. I guess that's as close as he gets.

 

edit, oh sorry, and Rand was named head of the Two Rivers, Perrin is like a Castellan or something.

Edited by Viperswhip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but Mat hasn't technically moved out of the 2Rivs yet and his citizenship - despite travelling and forming The Band - hasn't really changed. If he and Tuon decided to move back to Emond's Field Perrin would be their boss.

 

 

Fish

 

His citizenship HAS changed, and you allude to the reason why in the very next line: his marriage to Tuon. He is now, like it or not, Seanchan through marriage. His nationality will always be Duopotamian, but his citizenship in Seanchan given his role as Prince of the Ravens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since when do they have citizenship back in medievil times? Also the mayor of my suburb (im australian) has no power over what i do and im not his subject.

 

Does mat have his citizenship papers and deeds to his house too.

Edited by NitroS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Mat would become seanchan just because he married Tuon. Did Taringail become andoran when he married Morgase? Mat remains an andoran citizen from the TR district, which means he a subject of Elayne, and Rand.

 

However, this is Mat we're talking about, and I believe the one time Elayne tried to play the "loyal subject" card on him, his response was to snicker. Mat is only loyal to whom he wishes, and at the moment Rand fits best. He tells Elayne in ToM that when TG comes the Band must fight where Rand whishes, so Rand is probably the only one he would take orders from.

Edited by Master Ablar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are different topics in play here-

 

1. (At least in Britain) you are a subject of the crown by virtue of being born in that nation. That would have been Andor, but if the Two Rivers has been ceded to the DR, it would now be Rand. In English tradition, one is a subject of a monarch, but not a lesser lord. Its a specific term. That doesnt mean a commoner wouldnt have obligations to his feudal lord however, but he wouldn't be described as a subject of his lord. 

 

2. Perrin is a Feudal Lord in his own right, which means he can call upon those sworn to him personally (Alliandre for instance) and anyone sworn to them in turn. But such a person would be described as a vassal, not a subject. Essentially this is a contractual obligation based on the giving and protecting of land in exchange for allegiance (feudalism).

 

3.Feudalism was based on land ownership, people were incidental. So the status of peasantry really was tied to the status of the land. A freeholder was a freeman that either owned land or rented it, and had little other obligation to the local lord or owner. On the other end, a serf was tied to whoever owned the land and owed that lord allegiance. But he was a serf, not a subject.

 

Perrin's position is odd, and would be tenuous by medieval standards, because he doesn't really own any land. Its really more of a political appointment. He can rally support based on his personality, and perhaps out of fear, but by feudal standards he has no real ability to conscript armies etc in the Two Rivers.

 

Anyway, by either letter or spirit, Matt would not be a subject of Perrin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread makes no sense at all >.<. The OP uses the modern concept of citizenship in a medieval/renaissance world. Even though citizenship existed, it cannot be compared to modern citizenship. 

 

1. Citizenship only applied to people living in a city (bourgeoisie (French and can be translated into english as middle class) or bürger (German and is translated into citizen))

 

In the 11th century' date=' the bourgeoisie emerged as a historical and political phenomenon, when the bourgs of Central and Western Europe developed into cities dedicated to commerce. The organised economic concentration that made possible such urban expansion derived from the protective self-organisation into guilds, which became necessary when individual businessmen (craftsmen, artisans, merchants, et alii) conflicted with their rent-seeking feudal landlords who demanded greater-than-agreed rents. In the event, by the end of the Middle Ages (ca. AD 1500), under régimes of the early national monarchies of Western Europe, the bourgeoisie acted in self-interest, and politically supported the king or the queen against the legal and financial disorder caused by the greed of the feudal lords. In the late-16th and early 17-th centuries, the bourgeoisies of England and the Netherlands had become the financial — and thus political — forces that deposed the feudal order; economic power had vanquished military power in the realm of politics.[/quote']

 

The Two Rivers were not a city, but a rural society & the people generally weren't considered rich.

The term you're looking for is peasant. 

 

A peasant is a member of a traditional class of farmers' date=' either laborers or owners of small farms, especially in the Middle Ages under feudalism, or more generally, in any pre-industrial society. In Europe, peasants were divided into three classes according to their personal status: slave, serf, and freeman. Peasants either hold title to land in fee simple, or hold land by any of several forms of land tenure, among them socage, quit-rent, leasehold, and copyhold.[/quote']

 

Since the people of the Two Rivers (or any other rural/farming society in Andor) aren't considered slaves or serfs as far as I know, it's safe to assume they were/are freemen/franklins.

 

The term franklin denotes a member of a social class or rank in England in the 12th to 15th centuries. In the period when Middle English was in use' date=' a franklin was simply a freeman; that is, a man who was not a serf, in the feudal system under which people were tied to land which they did not own, in bondage to a member of the nobility who owned that land. The surname "Fry", derived from the Old English "frig" ("free born"), indicates a similar social origin.[/quote']

 

One of the biggest differences between the middle ages is that servitude, bondage or being subject to a king depended on land. 

 

A serf was a part of the land and even though a noble could exploit his serfs (to a certain extent), he could not keep his serfs if he sold or otherwise lost the land. He had to protect his serfs, but could not conscript them, as they belonged to the land & had to stay on it (unless the serf was 'lucky' & was able to buy himself free. Lucky is a relative term, because he no longer had any protection & I don't think they were able to work the land anymore).

 

A noble was someone who managed the country in name of his king. He had to muster armies in times of need, protect his serfs, collect taxes (mostly in the form of wheat), etc. Initially, in the early middle ages, a claim to a piece of land was not hereditary, but it later became more common that the eldest son would rule after his father had died.

 

A freeman rented a piece of land from a noble, but he had a lot more freedom than a serf and he only had to pay minimal taxes. He didn't own any allegiance whatsoever to a local lord, who only ruled in name of the king.

 

Here's the biggest problem with your statement. Mat left when his parents were still alive. Mat didn't/doesn't own any land. Since he doesn't own any land, he doesn't owe any allegiance to those owning the land. That Elayne claims he is her subject is in fact not true but an understandable mistake from the writer considering the fact that citizenship or being subject to a king or queen no longer depends on land these days or a stupid mistake made by Elayne if RJ intended it to be a mistake.

 

The difference between real life and a fantasy story is that in a fantasy story even the smallest farmer can travel across the world, can come into contact with many different cultures, starts out with a bag full of gold coins and is able rise far above his station. In real life most people couldn't afford to go much further than the nearest reasonably sized town and only the nobles usually had the ability to travel across an entire country. There were a few exceptions, like the citizens in cities (the rich traders) or when the pope called for a crusade, in which case I assume even some serfs were allowed to join (the travel expenses would be paid for by the church, I assume).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they didn't have citizens & nationalities like they do right now in the 17th and first half of the 18th century either & the people in the 3rd age WOT universe don't have the technology to implement something like that or to check it.

 

Also, I'm not sure it's supposed to be similar to the 17th and 18th century, more like the 15th and 16th century. Guns are just being invented, people don't sail around the world yet (besides the Seanchan & Atha'an Miere, but the last don't build colonies & don't intend to conquer), Kings and queens still rely on nobles actually governing estates, & I could probably enter a few more things that generally don't apply to the 17th and 18th century, if I really tried to find them in the books.

 

Anyway, like I already said, the idea of nationality, although growing, didn't really exist in the 17th and first half of the 18th century either amongst commoners. The American and French revolution are essentially what gave the common masses the idea that they belonged to something bigger than a lord, lady or a piece of farmland. All of that is fine and dandy, but without a proper system of civil servants to keep check on everyone, to register everyone's birth, parents, etc. the entire idea is nice, but meaningless. You could essentially decide to be American on one day & be British or French (if you spoke the language) the next.

 

You see, it's like money. I urge you to grab your wallet and pull out a bill.

 

How much do you hold? $5.=? $10.=? (assuming you're from the US) I can only guess.

 

How much is it worth? This I CAN answer. Only as much as you and the person you give it to believe it's worth. Essentially, you're holding a piece of paper worth slightly more than a piece of toilet paper. Sure, there's all kinds of fancy and expensive protective measures on the bill, but if you add the cost of the machinery and the cost of implementing it on the bill and divide that by the amount of bills printed each day, you might be surprised about how little an actual dollar bill is worth.

 

Bills are only worth anything as long as both parties believe it's worth anything. If you don't believe it's worth anything, you won't give it to a salesperson to pay for anything. If the salesperson doesn't believe it's worth anything, he or she simply won't accept it.

 

The same applies to a nationality before they were registered. Towns and cities were small scale & probably reasonably registerable. Land was also relatively easy, as a local lord or lady kept check on who rented the land. Besides that, it's all a matter of belief.

 

If Mat believes he is a subject, he's a subject, as long as Elayne believes the same thing. If not, then it simply becomes uncheckable and it simply becomes a am, am not or do, do not match. Fun, but on the bigger scale meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt would be a subject of the Crown of Andor from medieval law forward. Here's a fairly famous treatise by Sir William Blackstone written in 1765 on the history of what we would consider citizenship: http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-110.htm

 

"Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.  Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject ot the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.

...

With us in England, it becoming a settled principle of tenure, that all lands in the kingdom are held of the king as their sovereign and lord paramount, no oath but that of fealty could ever be taken to inferior lords, and the oath of allegiance was necessarily confined to the person of the king alone.

...

Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude, which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former;"

Edited by mbuehner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mbeuhner

 

Mat's situation does raise an interesting question which I should have asked in my last post. I'm not even going to bother trying to deny your source, as I'm pretty sure a 18th century noble knows more about English/common law than I do, but I'm going to assume the linked chapter & the quoted apply to common people. 

 

Since you know which sources to check, I'm going to ask you if you can find something relating to princesses. Does a princess that marries a foreign prince/king still owe allegiance to her father? It'd be rather silly considering the fact that they might end up in enemy territory if their husbands declare war on the princess' fathers.

 

I'm asking this because Mat's situation is more similar to that of a princess (and an independence fighter, but I'll get to that below) than that of a commoner.

 

Even though I'd like to know, I don't think that it really matters, since military strength practically nullifies the law(s) in question, otherwise George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & many of the other founding fathers would still be considered subjects of the king of England, even after they had won their war of independence (they were all born in the king's dominion, even if they were born on American soil, that American soil was still part of the king's dominion). Unless I'm mistaken (& honestly, I could be, cause I really don't know that much of the aftermath of the American revolution) they were no longer considered to be subjects of the English king.

 

If Elayne presses her claim on the prince of Ravens, she could end up pissing off Tuon & that might not be such a good idea, especially since she currently doesn't even have a capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

LoL...

And has Perrin realised he is about to be Matt's subject when the Dragon Reborn kneels before Matt's wife?

 

And has Egwene realised that Rand al'Thor is technically still the Amyrlin Seat and leader of the Aes Sedai?

 

And has Tuon realised that any children she has with Mat will be of a very different kind of Blood, and will suddenly burst out with Manetherin battle cries in the old tongue for no reason?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...