logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

The Bloody and Deadly Countess Elizabeth Bathory


The connection between the right-of-the-first-night hoax and the true story of Countess Elizabeth Bathory (1560 - August 1614)

At 04:03 2000 04 04 EDT, [Per ?] wrote:
>http://idt.net/~per2/
>
>
---snip---
>March 1997: Stupid Law Tricks (Topics: Did ancient lords really have the
>right to sleep with a bride on her wedding night?;....

Per explained that the right-of-the-first-night myth, "also known as the jus primae noctis (law of the first night), the droit du seigneur (the lord's right), etc.," is quite likely a hoax for the simple reason that the commoners would have risen in a bloody revolt if they would have been subjected to the alleged practice of the lord of the castle routinely deflowering freshly married virgins.

Another, far more terrible fate would have been in store for the lord if his wife would have caught on to what he was up to on the wedding nights of the commoners.  No, but there may be far more to the hoax than meets the eye.

If anyone looks into the darkest  and innermost secrets of the creation of the hoax, I bet that he'll find a surprising truth.  The motivation for creating the hoax was more than simple titillation by the idea of the two-backed beast of which one half was a virgin and the other a lecher (however noble).  No, the real motivation for launching the hoax was most likely the originator's fascination with sexual perversions of a different kind.

Given the name of the mythical king, Evenus III (often falsely pronounced "Evenus the Third," but more correctly "even us three") the interests of the creator of the hoax most likely were in a different sector of sexual endeavours.  One question that remains is: "Who was the third party?" 

Considering that nobody ever throughout history held back in calling men beastly, it is safe to assume that, in the mind of the creator of the hoax, the third party in the threesome in the legendary execution of the right of the first night was the legendary king's wife who, so to speak, had the king do the procuring for her in that fashion.  It is most likely that the creator of the tale was moved by the traditional respect for the falsely alleged moral superiority of women in making such an indirect reference to the depravity of the queen of his imagination.

Update (2005 01 29):

Mel Gibson had it wrong

The tall story of the right of the first night truly is a hoax.

Finally, after a full seven centuries of its existence, the hoax of the right of the first night has been officially debunked.

Boureau, Alain The Lord's First Night: The Myth of the Droit de Cuissage. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. 310 p. 6 x 9 1998

Cloth $55.00sc 0-226-06742-4 Fall 1998

Paper $19.00sp 0-226-06743-2 Fall 1998

From the late Middle Ages to The Marriage of Figaro to Mel Gibson's Braveheart, the ultimate symbol of feudal barbarism has been the droit de cuissage, or right of a feudal lord to sleep with the bride of a vassal on her wedding night. The droit de cuissage even resurfaced in the debate over the French Penal Code of 1992 as a synonym for sexual harassment.

But, as Alain Boureau elegantly demonstrates in this book, the droit de cuissage is a myth. Under contextual examination, nearly all the supposed evidence for this custom melts away--yet belief in it has survived for seven hundred years. Boureau shows how each era turned the mythical custom to its own ends. For instance, in the late Middle Ages, monarchists raised the specter of the droit de cuissage to rally public opinion against local lords, and partisans of the French Revolution pointed to it as proof of the corruption of the Ancien Régime.

A fascinating case study of the folklore of sexuality, The Lord's First Night also offers evocative insights into popular (mis)conceptions of the Middle Ages.

On the French edition: "A richly informative study of attitudes to the past and the manipulation of history down the ages."--Peter Linehan, Times Literary Supplement

Quoted from the University of Chicago Press
Ordering information and publishing details

Nevertheless, the hoax of the right of the first night has been around for so long and has been used in so many stories, plays and movies, it is quite likely that it will prove to be hard to dislodge.  We can count on that the feminist propaganda machine will keep on exploiting it for all it is worth.

The hoax, however, may well have been an oblique reference to a real member of the nobility who did have a perverse and even deadly interest in a large number of virgins.  The facts of that particular instance of perversion are well recorded and most definitely neither myth nor hoax.

"...the mid-fifteenth-century Countess Elizabeth Bathory, of Hungary, who bled to death 610 peasant girls, whom she abducted and kept in her castle dungeon so that she could fill rejuvenating beauty baths with their youthful blood." (Patricia Pearson, "When She Was Bad: The Myth of Female Innocence," p. 156)

There are without any doubt good reasons why the redfems don't promote the story of Countess Elizabeth Bathory and prefer to promote hoaxes instead.  In the case of the countess it is perhaps too hard for them to explain how she could possibly have exercised such deadly powers in a society that "oppressed" women.  But, given that women are the eternal victims, was it her husband or the devil who made her do it? 

Countess Bathory of Hungary tortured to death 610 to 650 girls (depending on source), not just peasant girls, but also girls of the lower nobility. However, contrary to many claims, there were no eye-witness accounts of her ever taking a bath in her victims' blood, although she subjected them to bloody torture that often soaked her in her victims' blood. She was tried and sentenced for her crimes to life-long imprisonment, with the pro-female bias in jurisprudence being well established even then to favour women in power, as most women are up to this day - only perhaps more all-pervasively, unless they are from the lower classes of society, such as stay-at-home moms.

Some of her accomplices were sentenced to death and executed. Countess Bathory was bricked in, so that she would never see the light of day again, and died a little while later.

For a full account of the life of the bloody and deadly Countess Elizabeth Bathory (1560 - August 1614), check http://bathory.org/erzstale.html

You can find a good article with bibliographical references at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~monarchs/madmonarchs/erzsebet/erzsebet_bio.htm

For a more politically-correct embellished story about the 'poor countess', you may want to visit a hotbed of radical feminism:

....How Could This Have Happened?

... Countess Elizabeth Bathory was a vain and mentally unstable woman whose circumstances allowed her hideous inner demon to break free. If the laws of her day had held her accountable for her actions, could the lives of 650 girls have been saved? We will never know.

Full story at
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Veranda/7128/why.html (Note: That link no longer functions, but the essay is still accessible here.)

(If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

See? It was the devil that made her do it (that must be true, for a feminist told it so); and who would want to believe that Countess Elizabeth Bathory was not the only woman, ever, of all those women for whom no-one — ever —  drew the line whose inner demons broke free?
   People like Jack the Ripper (he killed five prostitutes) are the stuff of movie after movie, book after book, headline-story after headline story in the papers.   People like Jane Toppan (a nurse and contemporary of Jack the Ripper who killed as many as or more than 90 patients for no other reason than that she wanted to set a record) and like Countess Elizabeth Bathory are forgotten, as is the fact that the vast majority of serious or fatal family violence victims fell victim to women's violence and also the fact that the vast majority of serial killers is female.
   Yes, that is right, because the largest single group of victims of violence in families, children, is not even counted in the tally of victims of women's violence.  We just don't want to know, because we, that is, the feminists, want men to be seen as being bad and want women to have victim status.  That works well.  In propaganda, perception is everything, and the truth is nothing.

________________

Further reading can be found in:

______________
Posted  2000 04 04
Updates:
2001 01 29
2002  01 01 (updated links to references)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2005 01 29 (added reference to book that debunks the myth of 'the right of the first night')