Stefan's Florilegium

p-marriage-art

p-marriage-art - 7/16/94

"Things Your Persona Would Have Known: Marriage" by Nicolaa de Bracton of
Leicester

NOTE: See also the files: p-marriage-msg, Ger-marriage-msg, Scot-marriage-msg,
p-weddings-bib, weddings-msg.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This article was submitted to me by the author for inclusion in this set
of files, called Stefanšs Florilegium.

These files are available on the Internet at:
http://www.florilegium.org

Copyright to the contents of this file remains with the author.

While the author will likely give permission for this work to be
reprinted in SCA type publications, please check with the author first
or check for any permissions granted at the end of this file.

Thank you,
Mark S. Harris
AKA: Stefan li Rous
stefan@florilegium.org
************************************************************************

Things Your Persona Would Have Known: Marriage
by Nicolaa de Bracton of Leicester

There are a whole series of laws (both canon law and secular)
surrounding marriage as it developed in the Middle Ages. This month,
I'll show you a bit of each.

In the early Middle Ages, marriage was not as regularized as it later
became. What we would term "common-law" marriages were quite popular,
and as legal as a church marriage. William the Conqueror (aka William
the Bastard--not a pejorative term at that point) was an illegitimate
son, but nonetheless inherited the Duchy of Normandy. However, the
growing feudal system, and the importance it placed on rights of
inheritance, combined with the Church's desire to further regulate the
practices of its flock, caused this to change.

In the Catholic Church, marriage is one of the seven sacraments (an
11th or 12th century development) and the only sacrament not to
require the assistance of a priest. The sacrament, in fact, is
performed by the couple; in public ceremonies, the priest merely
guides the couple and insures the proper completion of the ritual.
Clandestine marriages, while permitted, were frowned upon for several
reasons. First, in a public marriage, banns would be posted for
three weeks prior to the marriage. This was to insure that both
parties were willing, that there were no grounds which would
invalidate the marriage. (Some of these grounds could be overlooked
with a papal dispensation). This is also what is behind the presiding
priest's question to those attending a wedding as to whether anyone
knew of reasons why a couple could not marry.

There were a good many reasons why a couple might not be permitted to
marry. The first, of course, was consanguinity. If a couple were too
closely related (usually within the third or fourth degree), the
marriage could not occur, though the Pope could issue dispensations
for second cousins or less, and occasionally for first cousins.
Consanguinity is much more complex than this, however. One's
spiritual relations, including godparents, also were included, as were
all priests (since they were considered the spiritual fathers of all
laypeople). The definition was also tightened to include anyone one
had had sexual relations with as relatives....which technically should
have prohibited Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn on yet another set of
grounds, since Henry had formerly had an affair with Anne's sister. As you
might imagine, consanguinity was a complicated matter and could be
grounds for annulment if discovered after the marriage.

Complicated charts were often devised so that flustered priests could
figure this out. Another bar to marriage was a monastic or religious vow.
Sometimes widows or widowers would take vows of celibacy on the death of a
spouse, which they later regretted when they wished to be remarried.
These could be set aside with papal dispensation. The vows of a
priest, monk, or nun could only be set aside with difficulty, however.
A previous betrothal could also stop a marriage. Often marriages
would be arranged by families while the couple was too young; in that
case, a "plight-troth" would be said, which was essentially a promise
to marry (this was Mary's case when she discovered she was pregnant
with Jesus). This was not a full marriage, but was a vow nonetheless
and was thus binding. A plight-troth could be broken, but only with
the agreement of both parties. Children born to a betrothed couple
could usually be legitimized merely by marriage and could often
inherit, whereas children born out of wedlock were often barred from
inheriting even if the couple later married.

The following were causes for dissolution of an already established
marriage: one of the parties was not of legal age (12 for girls, 14
for boys), if the woman was incapable of sexual relations, if one was
in religious orders or bound by a vow (as above), if one married a
servant one had formerly had sex with; if one of the parties was not a
Christian, or if there was a mistake (someone marries person A instead
of person B, thinking that they ARE marrying person B), or a previous
marriage (even if not consummated) with a relative of one's intended spouse.
The following prohibited a marriage if known before, but would not be
grounds for dissolution of an existing marriage: rape, adultery, a
marriage performed during a prohibited fast period (Lent or Advent),
incest, or marriage by someone who had killed a clergyman.

Marriages (in England, at least) were often performed at the church
door, after which the couple would proceed inside to hear Mass. But
the sacrament was not completed until the marriage was consummated
(non-consummation was always grounds for a dissolution). Various
restrictions (honoured more in the breach, perhaps) were placed on the
collection of the "marital debt" (which, contrary to popular belief,
the wife had just as much right to demand as the husband). Just a few
included: no sex in churches or cemeteries, nor on major feast days,
nor during pregnancy, nor on top of holy relics, nor with only lust in
one's heart!

In secular law, clandestine marriages were frowned upon because of the
difficulties they could bring into determining inheritance. A
marriage which was not public (or at least witnessed by someone other
than the couple) could lead to claims on property by other relatives
upon the couple's death....which, of course, meant that it was left to
the heir to prove that the marriage was valid. Clandestine marriage
also meant that there was usually no dowry (the female child's share
of her father's property, which was given over to her husband, but was
sometimes left in her personal control), and by definition, there
could be no dower (an English custom, where the groom named part of
his property, usually one-third, as the wife's share should she
survive him), because a proper dower could only be constituted "at the
church door", in other words, in front of witnesses. This was both to
insure that a widow would be provided for and to make sure that heirs
were not deprived of their rightful inheritance, since dower property
was only for use during the widow's lifetime, after which it passed to
the heirs. With the advent of wills, men began leaving their widows
possessions in their own right, which unlike dower property, these
women could sell or give away as they saw fit.

Most of the traditions we now associate with marriage, with the
exception of the actual ceremony, do not really date back very far.
For example, white was not particularly associated with brides--
surviving portraits of weddings reveal that brides chose a wide
variety of colours. As many may know, only the bride usually received
a ring (which was symbolic of her vow--nuns who "married the church"
also wore a ring on the left ring finger). However, the tradition of
a large feast or party survives to this day. We also know that a
wedding was a time for throwing expense to the wind; lords were
entitled to collect a "relief" or fee from their vassals or tenants on
the marriage of their eldest daughter (though kings sometimes used
this money for other things, like beating up on France).

Copyright 1994 by Susan Carroll-Clark, 53 Thorncliffe Park Dr. #611,
Toronto, Ontario M4H 1L1 CANADA. Permission granted for
republication in SCA-related publications, provided author is credited
and receives a copy.

If this article is reprinted in a publication, I would appreciate a notice in
the publication that you found this article in the Florilegium. I would also
appreciate an email to myself, so that I can track which articles are being
reprinted. Thanks. -Stefan.

From: dani@telerama.lm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Nicolaa's articles #4
Date: 13 Jul 1994 18:10:00 -0400
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA USA

Susan Carroll-Clark <sclark@epas.utoronto.ca>:
>If a couple were too closely related (usually within the third or
>fourth degree), the marriage could not occur...

Seventh degree, but the definition of 'degree' changed midstream.
The Romans counted links in the family tree, so your first
cousin might be your father's father's daughter's daughter -- four
links, and hence related in the fourth degree. So you could marry
a third cousin, but not a second cousin. In the ninth century,
the definition was changed so that you checked the tree back seven
generations. In other words, your first cousin was now related in
the second degree, because you had a common ancestor two generations
back. Needless to say, the chance of two prominent people *not*
having a common ancestor seven generations back was modest enough
that the greater degrees of consanguinity tended to be ignored unless
it was in someone's interest to do otherwise. For example, when
Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis of France came to terminate their
marriage, a previously-overlooked consanguinity (I forget whether
it was fourth or fifth degree) was dug up to justify an annulment.
-----
Dani of the Seven Wells
dani@netcom.com dani@telerama.lm.com

<the end>