Droit du seigneur

[Bini]

Alright all you history buffs! I have a question about droit du seigneur. This is when a King or Lord had the right to sleep with a woman on her wedding night, before being handed over to her husband, usually a commoner and in some cases a slave. This was actually law. I watched a show recently, and it talked about this practice being alive and well no more than a few hundred years ago in Italy.

 

Did any of our prophets in the old times participate in this common practice? I'm not talking about having a harem of women, that's very different than taking another man's wife for your own desires, and then sending her on her way the next morning.

[Suzie]

Alright all you history buffs! I have a question about droit du seigneur. This is when a King or Lord had the right to sleep with a woman on her wedding night, before being handed over to her husband, usually a commoner and in some cases a slave. This was actually law. I watched a show recently, and it talked about this practice being alive and well no more than a few hundred years ago in Italy.

 

Did any of our prophets in the old times participate in this common practice? I'm not talking about having a harem of women, that's very different than taking another man's wife for your own desires, and then sending her on her way the next morning.

 

Well, first of all we should discuss if droit du seigneu ever existed. But if we entertain the idea, a simple answer would be a "no". However, those who have issues with Joseph Smith or even Brigham Young marrying women who were already married would say it is a variant of droit du seigneu. However there are several issues with that reasoning:

 

1. There isn't irrefutable evidence that these marriages involved sexual intimacy (specially in Smith's case although I personally believe there was).

 

2. Some of these marriages were merely sealings and these wives continued living with their husbands until they died.

[Bini]

Suzie, I know the wiki suggests that droit du seigneu may not have happened, but there is a town in Italy where it was recorded as having happened. I cannot recall the name of it, I could look it up, but I'm sure it's probably Google-able. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other places that have some sort of record of this.

[Just_A_Guy]

The idea that the President of the Church ever had first claim upon the virginity of any woman in the Church he happened to desire (or even the notion that such an idea was ever current in the Church), is utterly unsupported. 

 

I believe there are some statements out there from Brigham Young to the effect that a woman had a right to leave her unrighteous husband and marry a man who either she deemed to be more righteous, or who was higher in priesthood authority.  (As territorial governor he was very generous in giving certificates of divorce to women; whereas he typically told male applicants to tough it out.)  I have no idea with what frequency this may have actually happened in practice; but I suspect you might be thinking, at least in part, of the modern FLDS practice of the "prophet" coming up to a man accused of unrighteousness and saying "all your wives and kids now belong to me".  That practice is a perversion of Young's teaching--as I recall, it was the wife who was supposed to initiate that sort of thing.  It was an escape mechanism for the woman, not a wife-poaching procedure for the man.

 

Young did have a wife who was a bit of a firecracker (Augusta Cobb, I think her name was) who declared that she no longer wanted to be sealed to Young and insisted on being sealed to Joseph Smith.  Young eventually acquiesced, but drew the line when she later demanded to be sealed to Jesus Christ Himself.

[Suzie]

JAG, when you mentioned it was the wife who was supposed to initiate that sort of thing, you mean asking to be sealed to the Prophet? Because Smith approached quite a few of them.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm talking primarily about the Utah period.  Joseph Smith is his own can of worms.

 

We should probably note D&C 132:41-44.  This extract sets forth a general law that a woman who is sealed to a husband and is then "with" another man has committed adultery and shall be destroyed--UNLESS the first husband is himself an adulterer, in which case the prophet may seal the wife to a new husband and her union with that new husband will not thereafter be deemed adulterous.  That doesn't really set out a formal rule for who would generally initiate that type of proceeding; but in context it seems geared towards protecting the wife's prerogatives rather than the Church President's. 

 

The evidence during Smith's lifetime is scanty; but there's lots from the Territorial period; and we just don't see the sort of re-assignment or expropriation of spouses by Brigham Young that we see with--say--Warren Jeffs and the FLDS.

[carlimac]

The very idea that the leaders of the church were involved in a "form" of this Italian practice is really offensive. Crazy talk!!  

[Suzie]

The very idea that the leaders of the church were involved in a "form" of this Italian practice is really offensive Suzie.   

 

If you check carefully, I did not say it was my view. I stated:

 

 

 

"However, those who have issues with Joseph Smith or even Brigham Young marrying women who were already married would say it is a variant of droit du seigneu. However, there are several issues with that reasoning..."

 

And then I explained why such theory is unsupported.

[carlimac]

Well, first of all we should discuss if droit du seigneu ever existed. But if we entertain the idea, a simple answer would be a "no". However, those who have issues with Joseph Smith or even Brigham Young marrying women who were already married would say it is a variant of droit du seigneu. However there are several issues with that reasoning:

 

1. There isn't irrefutable evidence that these marriages involved sexual intimacy (specially in Smith's case although I personally believe there was).

2. Some of these marriages were merely sealings and these wives continued living with their husbands until they died.

 

I just can't think of any reason why you would even surmise that someone who does have issues with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would say they were involved in this practice. The way Bini described it, it  doesn't resemble anything the church leaders ever did in regards to their polygamous relationships. It actually sounds more like something that happens in a tribe of natives in the jungle. I just don't get how you came to relate it to polygamy in any way.You say you refute it yourself and I believe that. But it's silly to think anyone else, even enemies of the church might think that was going on in the early days of the church. Why would they think that?  Have you heard of someone putting this theory (lie) out there?

[pam]

Well when you say prophets of old times, how old are you talking about?

 

Early history of the church or biblical times?

[FunkyTown]

This is the strangest post I have ever seen:

"Did early members of the church engage in a practice that may or may not have existed."

First of all: How would we know? Secondly - What?

[Just_A_Guy]

I just can't think of any reason why you would even surmise that someone who does have issues with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would say they were involved in this practice. The way Bini described it, it  doesn't resemble anything the church leaders ever did in regards to their polygamous relationships. It actually sounds more like something that happens in a tribe of natives in the jungle. I just don't get how you came to relate it to polygamy in any way.You say you refute it yourself and I believe that. But it's silly to think anyone else, even enemies of the church might think that was going on in the early days of the church. Why would they think that?  Have you heard of someone putting this theory (lie) out there?

 

The OP maybe could have been worded a little less ambiguously; but I can see how Suzie could have interpreted it as referring to claims that Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to other men.  That's not exactly droit de signeur; but I can see how someone might think there are parallels.

[Anddenex]

Well...let me further shed some light on the matter Suzie, we know for sure droit du seigneur existed -- evidence -- I watched it on Braveheart (premission times, I have repented, withhold judgement :) )

[Suzie]

Well...let me further shed some light on the matter Suzie, we know for sure droit du seigneur existed -- evidence -- I watched it on Braveheart (premission times, I have repented, withhold judgement :) )

 

LOL!

[Suzie]

The OP maybe could have been worded a little less ambiguously; but I can see how Suzie could have interpreted it as referring to claims that Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to other men.  That's not exactly droit de signeur; but I can see how someone might think there are parallels.

 

Thanks. Hence, I mentioned the reasons why those claims are unsubstantiated.

[pam]

Well according to Wikipedia, there is no proof that it actually existed.  :)

[Suzie]

I just can't think of any reason why you would even surmise that someone who does have issues with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would say they were involved in this practice. The way Bini described it, it  doesn't resemble anything the church leaders ever did in regards to their polygamous relationships. It actually sounds more like something that happens in a tribe of natives in the jungle. I just don't get how you came to relate it to polygamy in any way.You say you refute it yourself and I believe that. But it's silly to think anyone else, even enemies of the church might think that was going on in the early days of the church. Why would they think that?  Have you heard of someone putting this theory (lie) out there?

 

 Again, I stated that some people who have issues with Smith and Young marrying women who were already married (which is technically polyandry) would see it as a form of droit du seigneu based on the unsubstantiated claim that Smith (Prophet, leader and Church president) approached some men to "have" their wives. If such women, continued living with their husbands after that, I can understand how they claim some sort of parallel.

 

Having said that, I refuted the idea and I explained the reasons why.

 

And about why they would think that, well Church history if full of uncorroborated events, contradictions, rumors, etc. Some people choose to take them as fact, others, take the time to research more and check sources. I hope I was able to clarify your questions.

[carlimac]

No, not really. I still don't see any parallel at all. If the woman is already married to someone else before Joseph Smith was then sealed to her, she wouldn't be a virgin (which was the point of the practice.) 

 

It's a big ole stretch to even compare it to polygamy at all.

 

I'm wondering, too, if Bini was asking if prophets in the scriptures practiced this rather than in modern day prophets.  That question would make more sense.

[pam]

No, not really. I still don't see any parallel at all. If the woman is already married to someone else before Joseph Smith was then sealed to her, she wouldn't be a virgin (which was the point of the practice.) 

 

It's a big ole stretch to even compare it to polygamy at all.

 

I'm wondering, too, if Bini was asking if prophets in the scriptures practiced this rather than in modern day prophets.  That question would make more sense.

 

Yeh I asked that earlier in the thread but never got a response. At least one that I saw.

[Guest]

Well...let me further shed some light on the matter Suzie, we know for sure droit du seigneur existed -- evidence -- I watched it on Braveheart (premission times, I have repented, withhold judgement :) )

 

Of course it existed!  That's how the f-word came into existence!  Fornication under consent of the king.  No?

<hides behind ficus tree>

[jerome1232]

Of course it existed!  That's how the f-word came into existence!  Fornication under consent of the king.  No?

<hides behind ficus tree>

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge In the Nude ?

Oh wait this isn't a game... sorry.