• Welcome to The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz.
 

Recent

Latest Shout

*

Evie

November 30, 2024, 10:14:58 AM
And the Zoom chat on Sunday will be at 3:00 PM US Eastern Time, whatever that converts to where you live.
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 29,812
  • Total Topics: 2,838
  • Online today: 95
  • Online ever: 930
  • (January 20, 2020, 11:58:07 AM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 64
Total: 64
Welcome to The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz. Please login.

December 01, 2024, 03:09:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Visionaries--Part Two--Chapter Twenty-Four

Started by Evie, April 20, 2012, 10:55:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alkari

Like I said, perhaps Aedwige should have thought of that before launching into her plan.   She could have pleaded her belly, got any verdict of execution postponed, and once the baby was born, arranged to go to confession and claim sanctuary then.   But as Aedwige doesn't care about the baby as an individual, you wouldn't expect her to think like that.  As for the suggestion that Gilrae's own family could pay for her care in sanctuary, why would they?   She murdered Gilrae, and they stand to inherit his estate.  Being brutally honest, it's no skin off their noses if Aedwige starves and there's no baby to inherit  :D

Elkhound

Quote from: Alkari on April 22, 2012, 10:15:57 AM
 But as Aedwige doesn't care about the baby as an individual, you wouldn't expect her to think like that.  As for the suggestion that Gilrae's own family could pay for her care in sanctuary, why would they?   She murdered Gilrae, and they stand to inherit his estate.  Being brutally honest, it's no skin off their noses if Aedwige starves and there's no baby to inherit  :D

That is why we have laws and civilizations---to prevent people from following enlightened self-interest when it harms the rights of innocent parties.

Alkari

#17
If we are talking about the rights and obligations of 'sanctuary', I have to say that there is no law that required a victim's family to help the murderer.   Indeed, that was one of the dangers faced by a felon who claimed sanctuary and had to leave at the end - vengeance from victim's family and friends who would be waiting to ambush the felon on the road.   So there is no law that would require Gilrae's family to act in the interests of Aedwige's unborn child, and they would be perfectly entitled not to do so, thereby acting in their own interest with respect to inheritance.   If you want to suggest they had some sort of a moral duty with respect to Aedwige's unborn child, that's fine, but please do not confuse 'morality' with 'law'.   As two wonderful lecturers (in torts and jurisprudence) made clear to us, they are not the same thing at all.  


Elkhound

Quote from: Alkari on April 23, 2012, 04:05:59 AMSo there is no law that would require Gilrae's family to act in the interests of Aedwige's unborn child, and they would be perfectly entitled not to do so, thereby acting in their own interest with respect to inheritance.   If you want to suggest they had some sort of a moral duty with respect to Aedwige's unborn child, that's fine, but please do not confuse 'morality' with 'law'.   As two wonderful lecturers (in torts and jurisprudence) made clear to us, they are not the same thing at all.

The law is supposed to protect the helpless; who is more helpless than the child in his/her mother's womb?  If Gilrae's family, in effect, kill it to accellerate the inheritance to them--which is what allowing A. to die with the child still within her--then they are as bad as Aedwige.   

And as the child is Gilrae's heir, the estate is already his/hers; it is being held in trust for him/her, and it is a fiduciary duty of a trustee for a minor heir to allocate sufficient resources for that heir's maintenence.

Alkari

#19
In medieval times, an unborn child was not a 'person' in the eyes of the law until it was born.  You can't have a fiduciary duty to a non-person.   Once the child is born, it will become the heir, but not until then.  (Even today, the legal status of a foetus differs across jurisdictions, which has important implications for the application of various laws.)  

Anyway, as I noted before, the church was obliged to feed the fugitive while in sanctuary: issues about outside assistance e.g. family and friends, only arose if the church itself was too poor, as happened in many smaller parishes and villages.  As I doubt that the Royal Chapel in Rhemuth is in financial difficulties, I am sure that Aedwige will at least get minimal sustenance for her stay there.   After all, they are only obliged to feed her - not feed her well.  :D    As to what may happen after she leaves sanctuary - well, the law also prohibited anyone providing her with any form of assistance.   So Sir Gilrae's family could legally turn their backs on her, thus proving that occasionally self-interest and the law do meet  :D   

Elkhound

Aren't most of the men making the decisions knights?  And isn't it part of a knight's duty by his vows to protect the weak and helpless?  And who is more helpless and weak than a child sill in its mother's womb, particularly the child whose own mother is a heartless b*tch?  And Gwynned is a Christian country, and the Church teaches that life begins at conception, so saying that her baby isn't a person yet won't fly.

Alkari

#21
Ah Elkhound, you do amuse me.   Please let me know when you manage to invent your time machine and are ready to go back and change some 800+ years of English law and history.    It would be interesting to stop off and change a few other things on the way too.   Oh yes, and there are a few legal figures I've wanted to meet - Lord Denning has always been a favourite.   :D

Elkhound

#22
Gwynned may resemble midaeval England, but it isn't quite;  KK herself has said that Deryni are humans as we ought to be.

And if I wanted to read accounts of midaeval Europe as it was--"a thousand years without a bath"---there are many good books in the Public Library I can read.

Tags: