42
$\begingroup$

I am writing a medieval fantasy novel, and need a specific crime to progress the plot. A noblewoman uncovers something about the son of the prince regent of an early medieval kingdom, and in doing so becomes an outlaw herself. What crime or scandal could she uncover about him that would get her in trouble with the law for uncovering it, but not him? It could just be that the law is corrupt and covering for him, but it would be more interesting if it were an actual crime to uncover whatever it is.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
16
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ What is the worldbuiliding aspect of this? $\endgroup$
    – SE - stop firing the good guys
    Nov 7, 2016 at 6:31
  • 45
    $\begingroup$ Crime has nothing to do with it. This is all about politics. She finds the prince's crime. The powers that be outlaw her. It matters not a jot what the crime is or could be. This question can only be answered as it stands by a torturous misunderstanding of the role of the law in society, even medieval society. Only power politics is required. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Nov 7, 2016 at 11:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @HenningMakholm: A mistypo? $\endgroup$
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 7, 2016 at 12:42
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9 means that accusing the royal person of a crime is itself a crime. $\endgroup$
    – pjc50
    Nov 7, 2016 at 13:12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @EasyTiger: I think you mistypo'd your comment and wrote it to the wrong person $\endgroup$
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 7, 2016 at 15:02

21 Answers 21

Reset to default
62
$\begingroup$

Unacceptable means of investigation

Have her use means that would put her honor/dignity into question. Perhaps the main evidence would be testimony from a lower class criminal. How does she explain associating with such a figure? Or the witness was a young noblewoman coming home from a night with a commoner rogue. "Wait a minute. You said you were in the black alley all by yourself when you saw the prince?"

Might makes Right

Make it something that we would recognize as a crime today, and that a theologian at the time would condemn, but which looks excusable or at least insignificant to a noble. Perhaps a young nobleman forced himself on a peasant girl. Definitions of rape and the ability to give informed consent mutated over time. "Yes, horrible if it were true, but you cannot accuse the duke of that."

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • 34
    $\begingroup$ (Suspicion of) witchcraft would make a very unacceptable means of investigation. $\endgroup$
    – user24000
    Nov 7, 2016 at 10:51
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @J.Doe Just copy the UK libel laws (if you hurt someone's reputation you are guilty, even if that which you said was perfectly true) and then apply the bog-standard "It is worse if you do it against a supposedly honorable person" bonus multiplier that exists in many jurisdictions even today. "What? You imply that the Duke/Prince/King are involved in wrongful doings?! How dare you!?". Simply remember that "equal before the law" and "innocent until proven guilty" are quite recent developments. In your midieval fantasy setting, there is no problem at all to have grossly unfair laws. $\endgroup$
    – MichaelK
    Nov 7, 2016 at 13:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What about something that would illegal back then and now? Like, is there some way that merely uncovering the crime could be illegal in today's terms. Something that we would still agree was immoral/illegal? $\endgroup$
    – user64742
    Nov 7, 2016 at 16:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @J.Doe - We fixed the libel laws a couple of years back. They were pretty open to abuse. $\endgroup$
    – superluminary
    Nov 7, 2016 at 17:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @superluminary "They were pretty open to abuse". I rest my case; this is what OP should model their laws after. :) $\endgroup$
    – MichaelK
    Nov 8, 2016 at 14:57
23
$\begingroup$

Anything Threatening Royalty

Perhaps medieval laws were made by royalty to suit their own purposes, rather than being made by commoners to suit their own good. Therefore, anything that threatens the royalty in any way could likely have been made illegal.

So, perhaps the noblewoman could uncover the fact the son of the prince regent is not actually of royal blood. This could threaten the son's royal lineage and hence threaten the royalty that makes the laws.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Um, Game of Thrones, anyone? $\endgroup$
    – cobaltduck
    Nov 7, 2016 at 18:22
20
$\begingroup$

Absolutely anything. Royalty did basically whatever they wanted because they could. Angering the prince would be more than enough to earn someone a trip to the gallows, and "the law" wouldn't really enter into it.

I remember reading about one of the generals in the 30 Years War who had a servant put to death for accidentally waking him in the middle of the night. Or there's Henry VIII who had his wives executed for not bearing him a son fast enough. Etc.

Your noblewoman discovers the prince's dirty laundry, so he says she's an outlaw. Guilty of treason or heresy or whatever - he's the prince, so he probably doesn't even need to provide a reason.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Funny that nowadays Saudi royalty still has a similar way of dealing with "troubles": this princess last Summer (2016) ordered her bodyguards to kill a decorator in Paris she hired because he took photos of her apartment. However, the final punishment was a mere head bruise, a forced kneel which made him kiss her feet and the loss of all the equipment he left in the apartment... $\endgroup$
    – CPHPython
    Nov 7, 2016 at 19:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CPHPython How much Western/"1st World" societies have advanced past this point is highly debatable, as well... but that's a separate question. Medieval societies didn't even make any claims to rule of law or fairness. $\endgroup$
    – HopelessN00b
    Nov 7, 2016 at 20:08
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ "Royalty did basically whatever they wanted because they could" - not really, at least not without fearing a revolt or giving leverage to pretenders. The most egregious cases of abuse people like to cite are actually exceptions. Most of the time they had a reputation to protect, so they didn't really do whatever they wanted all the time, at least not without consequences. $\endgroup$
    – vsz
    Nov 8, 2016 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ @vsz The fact that there were (and are) limits to "absolute power" is why there's a qualifier in that statement you quote. It doesn't alter the case or change the fact that the monarch's word was law and both royalty and nobility exercised the power to have people put to death for trivial or arbitrary reasons. Executing wives for not having male babies or some servant for being too loud are extreme examples, but they are probative ones - they show what few limits there were and minimal recourse there was against what we'd now consider "abuse" of power by those in at the top of Medieval society $\endgroup$
    – HopelessN00b
    Nov 8, 2016 at 14:19
12
$\begingroup$

One option would be scientific evidence that is transient and/or can be dismissed as witchcraft.

The noble woman suspects the Prince Regent's son is using "inheritance powder" to kill off older siblings to ensure his succession. As a budding cosmetic chemist she has experience with arsenic. She quickly devises the Hydrogen Sulfide test which is effective but transient. She presents the evidence to an authority only to have the evidence magically disappear and/or misunderstood. The noble woman then is the target of a vengeful royal family who accuse her of witchcraft and/or libel. When she discovers the evidence disappeared and they are going to arrest her she flees becoming an outlaw. Eventually she discovers the full Marsh test, is quietly pardoned, and her husband pawns off all of her future discoveries as his brilliant work.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Add a few more cryptic plot twists like this and you will have a loyal cult following of your medieval murder mysteries. $\endgroup$
    – KalleMP
    Nov 7, 2016 at 19:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KalleMP Already been done... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadfael $\endgroup$
    – Basic
    Nov 9, 2016 at 0:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Basic no that is totally different. Those stories are about a male monk not a female noblewoman.... lol I didn't know about that series but it doesn't surprise me that this has been explored before. $\endgroup$
    – Erik
    Nov 9, 2016 at 1:33
9
$\begingroup$

Knowledge of a plot to overthrow a monarch, knowing it but not reporting it is the first thing that came to mind. You said noblewoman, but you didn't say Queen. And there plenty who lost their heads for just such a thing, throughout history (especially during Henry VII's reign, which was after Medieval times, but a very interesting place to start, because that very paranoid monarch killed a lot of people...)

Now, in Medieval law it was illegal to have knowledge of a crime and not try and stop it or report it, mainly for males over the age of 12 (see this thread and the top answer there and the discussion below)but, as far nobility was concerned, in practice most crimes carried a fine.

My other suggestion is make him a younger son, who freelances as a Robin Hood type. This can be because his older brother or father, who is the actual Lord of the area taxes too much, and the son dons a mask and robs the tax men, corrupt churchmen and users. (You should probably read Robin Hood by Howard Pyle, which, while not historically accurate, does cover the types of people it was socially acceptable to rob).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

She discovers that the prince regent is her father.

Obviously a crime as minor as having an affair will not get the prince regent in trouble.

However, if she (or anyone) were to announce this, she would actually become an illegitimate child, which could very well be a crime that would let her lose her fathers title or worse!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ That's probably a minor detail, her father's title could well have come from his willingness to look the other way while his wife was with the prince. $\endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    Nov 7, 2016 at 15:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I feel it is worth mentioning that in some civilizations, if a ruler with a living heir (child) was appointed, their siblings were put to death to avoid any attempts to seize the throne. Bloodlines were respected to the point that there wasn't worry of usurpers from outside the family. If our heroine turns out to be next in line for the throne, such a civilization would have her executed by law. $\endgroup$
    – Bazul
    Nov 8, 2016 at 21:54
7
$\begingroup$

First of all, Medieval law changes between 5th and 15th century are quite a lot, and you should research the laws of the country and time the plot takes place in. A good start might be here.

Often, (early) medieval kings (that is, continental ones, like in the Empire of Charlemagne) were considered sacrosanct (derived from lat. sacer sanctus), which meant anything they would do was above the law because they were put into place by god. Likewise, their heir was sacrosanct to some degree too, partly to prevent plots against the royal lineage by incarcerating the heir. However, this was very much dependent on the place, time and power of the ruler. As a result, whatever the prince did was (at least for some time) at best "unacceptable" by society, and not technically breaking a law. One of the few exceptions would be plotting the death of the king/emperor or worshiping a banned religion (which was not punishable by the king but church).

Now, we have a noblewoman and she discovers the unacceptable behavior. Now, knowing has never been a punishable thing, but it made you a liability and problem. Telling, on the other hand, was punishable: If the woman would tell anybody what she saw or overheard, she would make herself punishable for badmouthing the royal family or threatening the throne.

Now, there also is the problem by what means did the woman discover it? Was she present in the prince's dormitory? Trespassing! Did she saw it with eyes in the forest? Oh, that makes her punishable for partaking an illegal hunt in the royal woods! Was she being told so by himself while alone? Now, she is in trouble to Name witness or this is libel, as the accuser is not a witness!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The word is "sacrosanct". I can't just move two letters around and have it be enough of an edit, but I think you can. $\endgroup$
    – Monty Harder
    Nov 7, 2016 at 23:31
6
$\begingroup$

  • Possibly, a crime where she had been involved herself.

  • Crime needs extensive proof like seven witnesses, but without proof considered slender.

  • Prosecution of this kind of crimes is solely entitled to some government or religious office/official, and not allowed for other people.

  • She made the accusation public while should keep it secret for the court to consider.

  • She extracted information or confession by torturing a nobleman.

  • Woman cannot rise accusation on a man.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Reporting that you are raped in the medieval islamic world would have the effect desired and still does in some modern contexts (modern Islamic countries; Brigham Young University, for example). $\endgroup$
    – ohwilleke
    Nov 8, 2016 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ @ohwilleke I think it falls to the second point $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Nov 8, 2016 at 17:44
6
$\begingroup$

Leaving aside the crown prerogative (which as the High Court of Justice in England is making clear even now, is by no means vanished from the world), libel laws in the UK used to be even more draconian than they are now. Specifically, truth was no defence against a charge of defamation. Indeed, the maxim of the law at the time was

The greater the truth, the greater the libel

(Many attribute this to Lord Ellenborough in around 1789, but other sources say it was Lord Mansfield). But this given, anything bad your heroine discovers about the Prince Regent and then lets anyone else know - however pure her motives - opens her up to a charge of defamation, which until fairly recently was a criminal offence in England and Wales.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ the question mentions Europe, not (just?) the UK, but the fact that this particular law is so distinctly different from US libel law (where truth is the ultimate defense against libel) makes it interesting to me from a writer's perspective. That, combined with the historical reality that a woman's testimony didn't hold much (if any) weight in court, could make for a lively story. $\endgroup$
    – papidave
    Nov 8, 2016 at 1:27
  • $\begingroup$ @papidave though the task is far from complete, we have somewhat improved the libel laws in the UK now. Note that Lord Ellenborough's quote is about the same age as the US! But I'm glad you found the idea thought-provoking. $\endgroup$
    – MadHatter
    Nov 8, 2016 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ I am fairly sure the phrase (or something like it) is used in De Libellis Famosis which is a 1606 Star Chamber case which also held that criminal libel held for the dead as well as the living. $\endgroup$
    – Francis Davey
    Apr 19, 2017 at 8:45
3
$\begingroup$

I can't add a comment so posting an answer, but @user24000 is onto something with witchcraft.

If the method the lady used to discover the crime, involved something that would have been classed as witchcraft in the medieval times, but is obviously not to those of us today, you would probably achieve the result you are looking for.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ She doesn't even need to have done "witchcraft", merely accusing her of it would probably be enough $\endgroup$
    – fyrepenguin
    Nov 7, 2016 at 18:50
3
$\begingroup$

State secrets

Simply make it so that anyone that comes into unauthorized possession of state secrets, or — even worse — that leaks such information to someone else, are committing a crime.

You may think it was ethically defensible of Edward Snowden and/or (then) Bradley Manning to released the documents they did, since those documents showed wrongdoings being perpetrated. Still: they did break the law as it was written at the time.

State secrets are a very convenient way to land an an innocent citizen in trouble, especially in a society such as the midieval setting you are setting your story in. Simply define that all information that is detrimental to the safety, reputation and prosperity of the realm (and its ruling class) to be secret, and that having unauthorized knowledge of such information is a threat to the same, and there you have it: instant hot water for your protagonist.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Adultery or Fornication on the part of the noblewoman.

Many medieval societies had a rather dim view of illicit sexual relations, and at times it could easily get your head put on the block. If the noblewoman discovered the incriminating evidence while in bed with someone she shouldn't have been with, revealing the source of her information is putting her own life on the line. Even better, perhaps she discovered the information while in bed with the prince regent or his son (or the liaison itself was the information) and revealing this would allow him to deny it vehemently while conveniently arranging for her confession to be used against her.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I'd say location. Some simple crime like trespassing. She would be accused of this by the regent prince, which renders everything she said appearing to be a lie to protect herself.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Can you expand a little on how this would work?   The son of the regent trespasses (where?) and she reports it?   And she’s in trouble — why?   Or is it the other way around? $\endgroup$
    – Peregrine Rook
    Nov 8, 2016 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ I think I might have misunderstood the question. Using my scenario it wouldn't be the deed she uncovered that got her in trouble, but rather the location where she uncovered it. So unless the son of the regent was trespassing there as well, he wouldn't be doing anything illegal. That kind of creates a hole in the story. $\endgroup$
    – Wouter Pol
    Nov 8, 2016 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ Just got a little different idea... What if the regents son would be caught stealing at a place that would be off limits to the noblewoman, but not to the regents son? In that case the regents son would be committing a crime, but uncovering it gets the noblewoman in trouble. Could be that she heard something, went to investigate, or something like that :) $\endgroup$
    – Wouter Pol
    Nov 8, 2016 at 15:38
2
$\begingroup$

The son of the regent raped the noblewoman.

When she uncovers this rape he claims that "she bewitched him and, falling for her devilish charm, he bedded her. And now she only speaks of it because she is pregnant from someone and wants to use the unborn to usurp the throne."

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The prince regent's son was really fathered by the pope

The Church trumps royalty almost every time.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Depends on period, celibacy for the priesthood was introduced quite late (1563) $\endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    Nov 7, 2016 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ Pretty sure the pope sleeping with the prince regent's wife counts as adultery, which was introduced pretty early. $\endgroup$
    – TMN
    Nov 9, 2016 at 18:52
1
$\begingroup$

Exposing a spy. If a spy of the current government is involved in unethical/criminal activities (in a country he's deployed in), it would be reasonable for the noblewoman to expose him. Whether she knows that it's a spy from her own country, it's treason in her country.

Let's say, the noblewoman is visiting/living in a different province/state/country than her own. She comes across a spy from her own country officially deployed here (she may or may not initially realize who he really is). The spy is involved in illegal/unethical activities that are not dictated by his job as a spy and the activities may even directly/indirectly harm the noblewoman which result in her exposing him. This is the right thing to do in this country but is clearly an act of treason in her (and spy's) own country. The spy escapes and flees to his home country and informs the prince about what transpired. The prince brands the noblewoman a traitor and outlaw.

The crux of it all is that the crime is crime in a foreign country but not her own home country and/or she doesn't realize what she is doing.

She may or may not know that the person she's exposing is actually a spy appointed by the prince. The prince could be the actual spy or somehow close enough. These details can be manipulated to add more drama or suspense etc as needed.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If revelation of the crime were itself considered a slander on the crown (in whatever way) then the act of revelation (as opposed to the act of observation) could put her in conflict with a strict lese magiste law.

On the other hand, it could be entirely possible that the act of observation would itself be a capital offense if the place the crime was committed were an area forbidden to commoners. For example, entry to a private garden could easily be a capital trespass -- and perhaps the only way she could have observed the crime of the prince would have been during such a trespass.

Extending the concept of forbidden areas a bit further and you can come up with any number of illegal acts where the location of the observer is the higher crime (for a commoner):

  • Stowing away on a royal transport
  • Sneaking into a palace at night
  • Picking the pocket of the prince (the evidence proves he has done wrong and proves that she is a thief)

...and so on.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If we assume that the law is being followed to the letter, for a situation like this to arise, something about the discovery has to be illegal.

Discovering that someone had committed a crime basically means acquiring certain information about their actions. There's two ways in which this could be illegal:

The crime is such that any evidence includes information which is illegal to possess.

  • The heroine discovers that the prince has been carrying out some dark ritual and memorizes the procedure. If any woman who knows how to perform mystical rituals is considered a witch, she has now officially become one.
    • Or the fact that she recognized it as a dark ritual (say, it was performed in public, but perceived by everyone as an innocuous action) incriminates her.
  • The crime involved some kind of secret government information, which is crucial for national security. Or the action itself is secret government information. In which case possessing such information without proper clearance could be considered evidence of espionage.

The evidence has been / could only have been obtained in an illegal way

  • The crime in question has been carried out in a private room inside the royal palace and our heroine witnesses it. In that case she has to have also been in/near that room, which is presumably off-limits to everyone but a select few.
  • It happened at night, while it is forbidden to be out at night.
  • The evidence was the prince talking in another room, and she could only have heard it if she were eavesdropping at the door, which is probably frowned upon.
  • The evidence is written down in a forbidden/restricted book. It might even be just written in a book, if reading in general is somehow restricted to a certain circle of which our heroine is not a member of.
  • The evidence is a certain object belonging to the prince, or something about that object.
    • The act of taking it may be considered stealing from the crown
    • Examining it may be likewise illegal
    • Reporting the find to anyone but the crown may be considered a violation of a citizen's duty
    • as above, the object may have been found in a location which is off-limits to the public.
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The son is plotting to kill the regent.  On the one hand, that would be murder, and he would be punished if he were caught before he accomplished anything.  On the other hand, this is the law of nature.  Survival of the fittest, elimination of the weak.  The King is dead; long live the King!  That sort of thing.  Once the regent was dead, his son would ascend to the regency and be above the law.

The woman learns of the young man’s plot by reading his mind, and/or clairvoyance, through witchcraft.  If she admits to being a witch, she will be dealt with severely.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Treason plotted by the prince, is very probable. After all, it's what princes did. She could be placed under house arrest, and declared an outlaw for good measure, to keep the prince's rebellion a secret, while it's being quietly put down. I one upped your undeserved downvote. If there was an objection to your answer, better that they declare the reason why. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Nov 8, 2016 at 9:46
0
$\begingroup$

Not exactly what you want, but what about Trial by Combat or its Scandinavian-Viking variation?

The noblewoman accusses the son of the regent of the crime without evidence enough1, and he asks for a trial by combat. A champion is chosen to represent the woman. Either:

a) the noblewoman's champion is defeated and she is accused of slander/treason and has to flee.

b) the noblewoman realizes her champion has no victory possibilities and to spare his champion (maybe her son or brother?) of certain death, she admits "freely" the libel.

Another variation would be that the son of the regents asks to be subjected to trial by ordeal, because he can rig the ordeal to easily pass it (making a public show of God's support).

1 A witness backs down when forced to declare, or happens to appear dead or have fleed when requested, or the woman makes the accusation before she has the evidence.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ under many medieval laws, accusing without any evidence and losing the TBC made you face the same punishment that the other would have awaited without a trial. As a result, the noblewoman would face a death penalty for failing to try to expose treason or murder. Also, TBC was allowable if the evidence is not compelling enough. However, should there be any counter-witness or -evidence (princess claims prince was with her at the accused time?), then there would be no TBC but the accuser would be found guilty. $\endgroup$
    – Trish
    Nov 8, 2016 at 10:57
0
$\begingroup$

She met him in a brothel/witch party/... and by telling she met him there she would admit having been there :)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This answer got flagged for being possibly too short. I must say, it is short, but in my opinion basically answers the question. You might, however, expand on this answer somewhat. Perhaps explain why brothels or witchcraft would be illegal or taboo in this setting, or supply some reasoning at least. Food for thought. $\endgroup$
    – MozerShmozer
    Nov 8, 2016 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It does answer the question. It is too short. More details required as to why brothels or witch parties would make revealing a prince's crime itself a crime. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Nov 9, 2016 at 11:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .