3 ms·

From the Wikipedia article: "Although the custom had no basis in law and frequently resulted in prosecution..." and "Writing in 1901 on the subject of wife sell

by _yosefk 11y ago

From the Wikipedia article: "Although the custom had no basis in law and frequently resulted in prosecution..." and "Writing in 1901 on the subject of wife selling, James Bryce stated that there was "no trace at all in our [English] law of any such right." (It also says that people did it despite it being illegal, but this doesn't seem very different from any subculture encouraging illegal behavior at any point in time, in that such subcultures always exist, and one can't extrapolate the attitudes within such a subculture to the entire society.)

sandworm101 11y ago
No trace in the law doesn't mean it was illegal. What that means is that no court has reported a case on the matter. That can mean it was very rare, or just was so accepted that it was never challenged in court, or happened in those many places where courts were not much of an option. Even if something gets to some form of courtroom, the chances that a decision would be written down and reported were slim during most of english history.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Read that quote again. "Although the custom [...] frequently resulted in prosecution..." It was illegal. I don't think, before the modern era, the law applied very well to the peasantry. It makes me wonder if the current system we aspire to, one law for everyone in the same country, really makes sense. There's something to be said for the rich ordering their society their way, and the poor ordering their society their way.
  - _yosefk 11y ago
    So what's the threshold separating "rich" from "poor"? What laws apply to me if my net worth fluctuates around that threshold? Different laws depending on the day? Now if being poor means you can't become rich legally then they do become closer to separate societies, but I sure wouldn't want to live under such a system.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      That was just phrasing. The principle isn't that we enshrine a division between rich and poor. The principle is that separate communities enforce their own norms among themselves. It happens that separate communities may differ systematically in many ways, including wealth. But taking premodern England as an example, all of the aristocracy would belong to the same group, while different impoverished villages across the country would not share a unified system; they'd all have their own systems, because unlike the aristocracy, they don't have much to do with one another. The laws applying to you are those of the community you belong to, irrespective of your net worth. If you want to change them, you need to be accepted by a different community (and then go live among them). The traditional way of doing that is to marry in.

by _yosefk 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

No trace in the law doesn't mean it was illegal. What that means is that no court has reported a case on the matter. That can mean it was very rare, or just was so accepted that it was never challenged in court, or happened in those many places where courts were not much of an option. Even if something gets to some form of courtroom, the chances that a decision would be written down and reported were slim during most of english history.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
Read that quote again. "Although the custom [...] frequently resulted in prosecution..." It was illegal. I don't think, before the modern era, the law applied very well to the peasantry. It makes me wonder if the current system we aspire to, one law for everyone in the same country, really makes sense. There's something to be said for the rich ordering their society their way, and the poor ordering their society their way.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  So what's the threshold separating "rich" from "poor"? What laws apply to me if my net worth fluctuates around that threshold? Different laws depending on the day? Now if being poor means you can't become rich legally then they do become closer to separate societies, but I sure wouldn't want to live under such a system.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    That was just phrasing. The principle isn't that we enshrine a division between rich and poor. The principle is that separate communities enforce their own norms among themselves. It happens that separate communities may differ systematically in many ways, including wealth. But taking premodern England as an example, all of the aristocracy would belong to the same group, while different impoverished villages across the country would not share a unified system; they'd all have their own systems, because unlike the aristocracy, they don't have much to do with one another. The laws applying to you are those of the community you belong to, irrespective of your net worth. If you want to change them, you need to be accepted by a different community (and then go live among them). The traditional way of doing that is to marry in.