It is currently fashionable to portray kings as somehow having gotten a hold of the reins of power and imposing their rule onto a suffering populace whom they cruelly exploited.
The "prima nocta" is thought by many to be some sort of perquisite which kings imposed on the people for their own amusement.
It seems far more likely that it was a lie designed to hide other secrets and preserve the prestige of the institution and of the people subject to it.
Royals probably knew that it was understood that they were to confine their attentions to certain subjects. That is, subjects who were "hoes" or who were also involved in governance.
The point of royalty was to use rapport to govern people who won't or can't honestly or even skillfully articulate their needs. They desperately needed the support of commoners in order to stay ahead of the nobles and townsfolk who governed themselves on a local level. They probably had royal ministers who could discreetly ask around about who the king could "get to know" to maximize rapport without offending too many of the commoners by soiling their wives or future wives. If the commoners maintained a rapport with the king, they could probably keep an eye on whether he were planning things which were not in their, the commoners', interests.
It is probably true that if the king had liked his people, he would have been of very little use to them as a king for they would not have needed him looking over their shoulders all the time and keeping them in line.
The job may have started out as a form of slavery, perhaps when the great plague of 5,000 years ago cut the population of Europe and West Asia by 90%. Some of the few who survived may have been smart and wealthy enough to self-quarantine. The people who expanded onto their former land may have been not very successful at home but quickly figured out they could exploit some of the survivors for guidance.
The Venus of Willendorf may have been some sort of proto-queen.
The "prima nocta" is thought by many to be some sort of perquisite which kings imposed on the people for their own amusement.
It seems far more likely that it was a lie designed to hide other secrets and preserve the prestige of the institution and of the people subject to it.
Royals probably knew that it was understood that they were to confine their attentions to certain subjects. That is, subjects who were "hoes" or who were also involved in governance.
The point of royalty was to use rapport to govern people who won't or can't honestly or even skillfully articulate their needs. They desperately needed the support of commoners in order to stay ahead of the nobles and townsfolk who governed themselves on a local level. They probably had royal ministers who could discreetly ask around about who the king could "get to know" to maximize rapport without offending too many of the commoners by soiling their wives or future wives. If the commoners maintained a rapport with the king, they could probably keep an eye on whether he were planning things which were not in their, the commoners', interests.
It is probably true that if the king had liked his people, he would have been of very little use to them as a king for they would not have needed him looking over their shoulders all the time and keeping them in line.
The job may have started out as a form of slavery, perhaps when the great plague of 5,000 years ago cut the population of Europe and West Asia by 90%. Some of the few who survived may have been smart and wealthy enough to self-quarantine. The people who expanded onto their former land may have been not very successful at home but quickly figured out they could exploit some of the survivors for guidance.
The Venus of Willendorf may have been some sort of proto-queen.
