#Serfdom
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
lillylesdom · 6 months ago
Text
Helga's Servant
Tumblr media
Helga's carriage clattered to a halt outside the grand gates of her castle. The journey from the distant kingdom had been long, and the weight of her royal duties pressed heavily upon her shoulders. As she stepped out onto the cobblestone courtyard, her eyes scanned the familiar surroundings, searching for the one face that could ease her weariness.
"Princess Helga, your highness!" Amira's eager voice pierced through the air, and Helga's heart quickened in response. She turned to see her servant rushing forward, wide-eyed and breathless. The afternoon sun highlighted the contrast between Helga's pale complexion and Amira's rich, dark skin.
"Amira," Helga murmured with a hint of relief, reaching out to grasp Amira's hand for assistance getting down from her carriage. The warmth of Amira's touch steadied her, a silent promise of comfort. Without another word, Helga tugged on Amira's wrist and led her through the winding corridors of the castle, their footsteps echoing off the cold stone walls.
Arriving at the royal bath, Helga released Amira's hand and began to peel away the layers of her travel-worn outer-attire. Amira moved with practiced grace, setting about her task of drawing the bath. Steam rose from the water as it filled the ornate tub, perfumed oils swirling into delicate patterns on the surface.
"Undress me," Helga commanded softly, her voice carrying an undercurrent of impatience. Amira's fingers worked quickly, unfastening the intricate clasps and laces of Helga's remaining gown. The fabric fell away, revealing the princess's dainty and pallid form. Helga stepped into the bath, sighing as the warm water enveloped her.
Amira stood at the edge, waiting for permission to join her mistress. Helga's blue eyes flickered with a mixture of anticipation and authority. With a nod, she granted Amira access, and the servant undressed quickly, then slipped into the bath, positioning herself at Helga’s feet.
As Amira began washing Helga's soles, Helga kicked the sponge from her hand.
"Relieve me," Helga demanded, placing her milky white legs over Amira's dark shoulders. There was no hesitation in Amira's movements as she leaned forward, her full lips pressing tender kisses against Helga's lower belly and thighs. Each touch was imbued with a deep-seated devotion.
Helga's breath hitched, the sensation of Amira's lips on her sensitive skin sending shivers down her spine. Amira's ministrations were tender, almost worshipful, treating the princess's delicate alabaster flesh as if it were the most precious thing in the world.
Helga closed her eyes, allowing herself to be lost in the sensations that Amira's touch invoked. The tension of the journey melted away, replaced by the mix of desire and fulfillment.
The warm water danced under Helga's porcelain skin as Amira's full, black lips trailed languidly along her inner thigh. Helga reveled in the contrast—the eager tongue serving her and the strong, calloused hands of a working woman caressing her delicate body. Each touch was electric, sending shocks of pleasure through her.
"Keep going," Helga murmured, her voice edged with a mix of command and need.
Amira's body began to ease into the ritual, her movements becoming more fluid, almost relaxed. Helga felt the shift and frowned. Without warning, she lightly kicked Amira's back with her heel.
"Sit up straight," Helga barked, her tone sharp. The servant instantly corrected her posture.
"Forgive me, Mistress," Amira whimpered, her eyes downcast but her hands never faltering in their worshipful task. One hand slid up Helga's torso, pausing just below her chest. The fingers splayed out, feeling the rhythmic thud of Helga's heartbeat beneath the pale flesh.
Able to judge the state of Helga's body, Amira pressed soft and slow kisses on the pink of Helga's vulva.
"Good girl," Helga breathed, her eyes closing again as she surrendered to the sensations. Amira pressed her palm firmly against Helga's chest, attuning herself to the rhythm of the princess's pulse. She moved with precision, bringing Helga to the very brink of ecstasy, then pulling back, hovering at the precipice.
"Come on," Helga finally gasped, her control slipping. "Now."
With her mistress's permission, Amira's lips wrapped around the rosy, pink center of her mistress, her tongue slipping between the folds and pleasing, lapping up the precious gift of this white woman’s arousal. Helga's breath quickened, her body tensing as the waves of release began to crash over her.
"Amira," she whispered one last time, her voice breaking. She squeezed her thighs around the servant's head and grabbed her hair, then succumbed entirely to the overwhelming flood of pleasure that her loyal servant so expertly delivered.
"You've done well," her voice still tinged with desire. "Clean up and attend to my chambers. I'll need you again later tonight."
42 notes · View notes
racefortheironthrone · 2 years ago
Note
How did people become serfs? Like, birth was probably the answer for some, but were other people made serfs after being born in a different social class? And how did it get started, anyway?
Given that the legal default in medieval society was that you were born into the legal status of your (usually male) parent and could not change it, most serfs post the first generation were born serfs.
But as I was suggesting in my post about the Normans, you could be made into a serf through a change to the underlying land tenure that defined your legal status. So for example, you could start out a free churl (wasn't initially a pejorative, but there is something insidious about the way that words for working people get transformed into insults), and then 1066 rolls around.
All of the sudden some collaborator translator is explaining to you what some French-speaking foreign priest is saying about how the new king's new legal system doesn't recognize "churl" as a valid status, please tick the box for either "knight" or "serf," and if you complain there's this French-speaking illiterate violent maniac on horseback backing him up - and the maniac thinks he owns the land your father's bones are buried in and you and your family come with the land, and he'll kill you if you disagree or if he gets bored.
Tumblr media
As to how it got started...arguably it all goes back to Diocletian. As a reforming Roman Emperor in the Crisis of the Third Century, Diocletian was having trouble getting his hands on enough hard cash to pay the troops who guarded the borders (who were increasingly led by men with titles that would be later translated as Duke, Count, and Baron, which is a bad sign), so he started paying them in-kind and extracting taxes from the coloni (tenant farmers) in-kind. In order to ensure that revenue from the coloni remained consistent, Diocletian issued an edict that it was illegal for the child of a coloni to hold any other occupation than coloni, and that it was illegal for coloni to leave the land upon which they farmed.
Pretty soon, once the Emperor goes away and there's only the Duke, the Count, and the Baron running the show, the local warlord just cuts out the middle-man and takes the in-kind taxes directly, calls them rent, and asserts that they own the land (or at least the right to rents and taxes from the land) while menacingly sharpening a sword. And hey presto, you've got serfdom!
224 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Nanny McPhee (2005, Kirk Jones)
24/09/2024
12 notes · View notes
datamodel-of-disaster · 1 month ago
Text
Childhood as Serfdom
An analysis
(Or: I'm on my soapbox, enjoy/suffer the consequences)
I was gonna write a funny post about how being a child is kinda like being a medieval serf, but then I thought about it longer and actually it's not funny. So, be prepared.
People have a lot of resistance to the idea that children, legally and societally, are serfs. There is a visceral unwillingness to put together and see what the whole of laws and customs concerning minor persons actually amounts to, and I actually think that unwillingness is at the root of what makes so much "think of the children/protect the children" right wing rhetoric so effective.
In English, the word "serf" mostly brings to mind medieval peasants, but in Dutch it touches a little more on what it actually is. Lijfeigene, literally translated, "body-owned-one". A serf is not the same as a slave -he is not considered a tradeable good or personal possession, and cannot be murdered or raped with impunity. He can have property and this property is protected by the same laws that protect the possessions of free people. But similarly to a slave, a serf does not have self-determination over his own body, freedom of movement, or ownership of the fruits of his own labour. He is not legally considered an individual person so much as a part of an estate, a condition we'd still commonly describe as "unfree". In the medieval system of serfdom (at least in England) a serf had to pay for a "license" from his Lord to do just about anything, from marrying to repairing a fence. So we can say that medieval serfdom was a system where fundamental freedoms were paywalled rather than fundamentally denied, as in the case of slavery. There were ways to receive permission to do things, but the necessity of receiving (and, in the medieval use case, paying for) this permission was a fundamental aspect of the system.
Now.
Let's entertain this thought. Does childhood meet the criteria of serfdom?
Well.
Children have no freedom of movement.
You perhaps wouldn't look at the permission slip to go on a school trip as something in the same vein as a medieval serf's license to visit a cousin on a neighbouring estate, yet that is exactly what it is. "Where are your parents?", local police in suburbia giving a child a ride home if they get spotted walking alone, "No unaccompanied minors", parents being sued for leaving their kids home alone, the entire concept of "familial kidnapping" and the fact that custody is a matter of legal regulation when a couple divorces. Children's lack of freedom of movement is everywhere if you care to look.
When people get annoyed at "loitering" teenagers, they are contesting children's right to be in public spaces, unaccompanied and without specific purpose or permission.
When people judge parents for their children being a nuisance, they are explicitly acknowledging that the child's movements could be curtailed and controlled by the parents -indeed, they are stating such control to be the correct course of action.
Explicitly and implicitly, our society accepts and supports children not having natural freedom of movement, and places -for better or worse- the responsibility for their movement on the parents. In this, the parents are the Lord of the estate, and the child is a serf attached to this estate. Additionally, as the entire concept of custody shows, we have in fact codified the rights of parents to continued access to any children that were part of an estate that was legally split between them in a divorce.
Children do not have right of self-determination.
Children have precious little protection to their bodily integrity. From birth, they can be circumcised, have their genitals surgically "corrected" if they look too ambiguous to the eye of parents and doctors, have their ears pierced, be baptised or initiated in a religion, have cosmetic surgery performed on them, etcetera.
I am specifically not listing life-saving medical measures here, because yes -children are different from mature adults, and especially babies have no capacity to self-determine in matters of their own survival. We will address this matter of capacity later on. For the purpose of this exercise however, it is worth pointing out all the non-life-saving, non-essential actions that would be considered highly invasive if performed on an adult, yet can be freely performed on the body of a child with zero input or consent from the child itself.
Compared to that, all the less invasive ways in which children are typically allowed little to no self-determination, from choosing their own clothes to eating when and what they want to, seem less impactful. But they add up, and you should keep them in mind.
(And even in the context of life-saving measures; there are some hotly contested legal cases of parents wanting to deny life-saving or life-improving medical intervention to their children for religious reasons, that illustrate just how important our society considers the rights of the parent over a child's body. If these rights weren't considered almost inviolable, there would be no contest between them and a person's survival.)
When we look at what things children can and cannot do legally, the underlying assumption is always that children are in a form of diminished capacity with regards to self-determination, and must therefore be protected from decisions made in this diminished capacity. Hence we have concepts like statutory rape, child labour prohibitions, and laws that protect children from, for example, signing contracts. Most people will agree that children are not adults and do not have the same capacity to make fully informed decisions for themselves. So, it makes sense that there are laws that protect them from being taken advantage of.
In the context of childhood as serfdom it is more interesting to consider the conditions under which these protections can be circumvented.
Let me elaborate:
In the US, parents can take out loans and credit cards in the name of their child -while a child cannot legally sign a contract, a parent can essentially sign for them and saddle a child with debt long before they can even comprehend what that is. In some circles it even gets recommended to take out a credit card in a child’s name and diligently keep a good credit score with it so they can have a better financial start when turning 18.
In 37 states of the US, child marriage is legal if a parental waiver is provided, and in 20 of them there is no minimum age for marriage at all under these conditions. (Look, there it is again, the serf's license!) So while legally a child cannot consent to be married or sign a valid marriage license, a parent can consent for them. For additional context here; the "statutory rape exception" that allowed underage sexual activity if the participants were married was only amended in federal law in 2022, and similar exceptions are to this day still encoded in US military law.
But…Child labour is still actually prohibited, right? Right?
Well… no. Not really.
Children in the US can be employed in non-agricultural jobs from the age of 14 with parental permission, whereas for agricultural jobs the allowed age of employment varies between states and isn't federally determined, but can be as young as 10. Additionally, minors of any age may be employed by their parents at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by his or her parent(s).
There are technically laws about how many hours and in what type of labour children can be employed, yet in practice there are a lot of potential exceptions, and these laws are (unfortunately) continually under attack. Which leads to my next point…
Children do not own the fruits of their own labour
Children can own property, in the legal sense. They can "hold title", as one says, of most items (except motor vehicles in some states in the US -remember this in connection to freedom of movement!), be the beneficiary of an inheritance, and receive gifts.
However.
Holding title does not mean they have the usufruct of the property, nor that they cannot be denied access or usage of it by their parent. More importantly…
In the US, a child does not have an automatic right to their own wages. Let me share you a couple excerpts of law:
Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen 497:
Whatever therefore an infant acquires which does not come to him as a compensation for services rendered, belongs absolutely to him, and his father cannot interpose any claim to it, either as against the child, or as against third persons who claim title or possession from or under the infant.
Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure:
As a general rule any property acquired by the child in any way except by its own labor or services belongs to the child, and not to the parent
Wheeler v. R. Co., 31 Kan. 640, 3 P. 297, 300:
As a matter of law a minor may own property the same as any other person. He may obtain it by inheritance, by gift, or by purchase; and there is nothing in the law that would prevent even a father from giving property to his minor child. A father may also so emancipate his minor child as to entitle him to receive his own wages.
So…
A child can be employed, with an employment contract signed by their parents, and any wages they earn automatically belong to their parents.
That is literally what it means to be a serf.
I am not saying that all children are exploited in the manners I described above. But it is an illustration of the culture we live in, that all these types of exploitation are in fact legal.
Almost any attempt to legally protect children in their developmental condition of diminished capacity leaves loopholes for parental exemptions. The right of a parent to make decisions about a child's life, body and movement is entrenched in our society and legal system.
Which leads to… "protect the children".
What we talk about when we talk about protecting the children
Endeavours to "protect children" come in multiple shapes.
There are the initiatives to improve the legal framework that protects the rights of children - such as the Californian law that forces parents of child actors to keep the child's wages in trust rather than automatically own them, or the amendments that removed the marital exception from the statutory rape law. They can be characterized as movements to chip away at the serfdom status of children, while still respecting the fact that children are in fact a vulnerable class of people who require protection.
Then, there are initiatives that aim to protect the rights of parents over children. Lately, many of those are essentially extensions of children's current serfdom status into the plane of the immaterial. Think, laws that aim to limit children's freedom of movement in cyberspace as well as public space. Laws that dictate what information children are allowed free access to. Laws that limit children's privacy from their parents, under the guise of protecting their privacy from strangers.
This latter category will often wrap itself in a layer of fearmongery anecdotes and moral panic language in order to gain support and justify exerting additional power over children. The reason this works is that to have a meaningful defence against it, someone has to consciously acknowledge the serfdom status of children, and consider it harmful.
Now, most parents aren't actively exploiting their child's labour, racking up debt in their name, or arranging their underage marriage. But almost all parents have exerted power over their child's freedom of movement, denied them privacy, taken their possessions as punishment or simply out of convenience, and forced their will on them in a million unimportant ways where letting the child self-determine would not have had any real impact on their wellbeing or safety. Acknowledging the serfdom status of children means acknowledging all of that as a kind of authoritarian lordship rather than benevolent custody.
Clearly, people have resistance to seeing themselves as -even mildly- villainous in any story, and the urge to defend one's parenting decisions is a strong one. As such, it's easy for someone to defensively think, "This power I have over my children is good, actually. I should have more of it, for their own good." And that is, at its heart, a fascist idea.
We will never dismantle fascist rhetoric as long as we remain comfortable with categories of people who are unfree for our convenience. And that doesn't just include children -I'd posit that it actually starts with children.
(Have mercy on me, I wrote this at work. Will add sources/bibliography later.)
8 notes · View notes
alpaca-clouds · 3 months ago
Text
Hector's "Race"
Tumblr media
Okay, you know what? I cannot help myself, I need to talk about this.
Whenever those folks with a hate boner for the Netflix series grasp for straws to critique it on, someone will bring up that "it is totally racist, that Hector, a brown man, gets enslaved by white women!!!!!" To which I will be sitting there like: "... You do get that Hector is Greek and hence white, right?!"
Because, like... two things. First: Race is a completely made up concept. More than that, it was a concept that in the 15th century did not yet exist - though was just around the corner, because it basically came up as soon as settler colonialism became a thing. (Mind you, the show is set about 15 years before Columbus did greatly miscalculate the circumferance of the earth.)
Second: Yes, Mediterranean people (just like the Irish and the Scottish) were not really considered "white" around 1900. Even though their story does not involve the kind of slavery, that folks talk about. However, today Mediterranean people - just like Irish - are considered white. Becuase, again: Race is just a made up thing. It is not real. It is a cultural leftover from colonialism.
Hector is from Rhodes. He is Greek. If you want further proof, other than the series explicitly saying he is from Rhodes: He is voiced by a voice actor from a Greek voice actor. Because Powerhouse does care surprisingly about those things.
Yes, his skintone is a bit darker than that of European people from central and northern Europe. But actually, if you reduce it to that kinda stuff, that shows people just that you have race-essencialist thought patterns.
Now, if someone was to talk about Isaac in this regard, I would still consider the argument kinda stupid - but at least I would get where it comes from. Especially that while the Order of Christ (whose colors his master wears) had started tapping into Africa starting around 1440 to get slaves from there, this was not yet a widespread thing. While I think it is a good move to give Isaac a comprehensible reason for wanting to do a genocide on humanity (and probably one of the few ways in that it would have worked while keeping him as a sympathetic character), I at least understand that it feels a bit reductive to have the Black character be motivated by slavery.
Though personally, I would have rather preferred just that the show would have brought up that about a third if not half of all people in Europe at the time were white slaves. Sure, this sort of slavery (serfdom) was very different from what we later associated with the word (cattle slavery), but yes, most people we see are probably some sort of serf.
But in regards of Hector's story being somehow racist because his skintone is a bit darker than that of other characters? Yeah, that is just race essencialist bs. By any modern definition of this made-up race bullshit, Hector is white.
8 notes · View notes
blackthornlegacysims3 · 2 months ago
Text
With two toddlers and another baby on the way, Anabel knows she can't continue like this.
Tumblr media
It's not ideal, and she wants better than this for her kids (she knows Arthur would too), but she decides that becoming a serf is better than freezing or starving to death.
Tumblr media
She explains her situation to the Lord Anselm of Atterbury, who agrees to provide her a suitable cottage in return for her labour, and that her children will provide their labour once they come of age to be helpful.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
(I know she wouldn't directly ask him but idk who she would talk to and I didn't make more sims lol)
6 notes · View notes
warsofasoiaf · 9 months ago
Note
What is the difference between slaves, serfs, and indentured servants?
Obviously, this is oversimplifying because the various rights of slaves and serfs could vary greatly from location to location and time period to time period.
Typically, the big distinguishing mark of chattel slavery is the ability to buy and sell people as property. The slaves are property of their owners to dispense with as they please. Serfdom, meanwhile, has the serfs as part of the land. Serfs typically cannot be bought or sold, and remain with the land holding that they are tied to. Indentured servants typically sell a contract of their unpaid labor for a set duration. These contracts could be sold the same way someone sold a loan, so it was possible (and indeed, very common) for the indentured servant to have their contract sold. The classic example of indentured servitude happened in passage to the New World. The indentured servant sold their indenture to a captain in exchange for passage, and when the captain arrived, he'd typically sell the indenture to large planters for a tidy fee.
Thanks for the question, Anon.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
11 notes · View notes
arabdoll · 1 year ago
Text
“Write about how this young man squeezes the slave out of himself drop by drop and how one fine morning he awakes to find that the blood coursing through his veins is no longer the blood of a slave but that of a real human being.”
Anton Chekhov, letters to a friend
18 notes · View notes
saying-odd-shit · 5 months ago
Text
if i was a serf i would be going through a serfy little breakup with Burchard the serf and cry in my straw serf bed not even knowing i could go visit like Edith the serf and get my serfussy ate or whatever
5 notes · View notes
themoleperson · 3 months ago
Text
*beckons you to my store* you there, have you ever wanted a tool for sailing with the waves that also has the convenience and affordability of a medieval peasant? well let me introduce you to the Serf Board (tm)
3 notes · View notes
shuckmaster1365 · 2 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
how I fele after a long day of tilyng þe feldes
2 notes · View notes
racefortheironthrone · 11 months ago
Note
how would a castle like winterfell feed everyone on a day to day basis?
Well, just like any manor house or city-state, there would be agricultural land around Winterfell that was the lord's land held outright and agricultural land around Winterfell that was leased to feudal tenants (who would also work on the lord's land on a paid or unpaid basis, depending on whether they were serfs) either on a cash or in-kind basis.
At harvest time, the castle would take in all of the crops from its own land plus the rent from the leased land (sometimes as a share of the crop and sometime as cash). These staple crops, as well as garden vegetables and meat and livestock byproducts, would be processed by mills, smokehouses, and the like and then stored in granaries, storehouses, cellars, and so forth, and then distributed by the servants according to custom and practice.
30 notes · View notes
doonthestair · 4 months ago
Text
woulda fucked it up as a serf lowkey
3 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Nanny McPhee (2005, Kirk Jones)
23/07/2024
4 notes · View notes
grayrazor · 9 months ago
Text
It's kind of refreshing to go back to the blunt honesty of 1800s slumlords and plantation owners, before all the rationalizations and obfuscations of liberal capitalism.
The whole idea of people being inherently lazy comes from them seeing that if people weren't working for them on their mines or farms or factories they were subsistence gardening and hunting.
"How dare those ingrates want to provide for themselves and be left alone instead of producing bulk goods to stimulate the economy! How can they see all these resources out there and not want to exploit them to depletion? Really, we need serfdom/slavery, these brainless animals need to be taught discipline."
3 notes · View notes
blackthornlegacysims3 · 2 months ago
Text
Life is tough for Anabel as a single mom, balancing farm work, housework, grieving her husband, and still putting a smile on for her young ones.
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
But she powers through it, and before she knows it, the baby is coming!
Tumblr media Tumblr media
She gives birth to a baby boy, which she names Arthur, to honour her late husband.
Luckily, both mom and baby survive the birth!
3 notes · View notes