The Church of Rome tries to maintain that marriages are forever and only under certain circumstanceswill the Church allow a divorce or the annulment of a marriage.
What would the reasons have been for Thibaut IV-I, king of Navarre and count of Champagne, who divorced not just once but twice?
Born in 1201, he married in May 1220 Gertrud von Dagsburg but divorces her in 1222. This marriage was childless.
Then in the same year, 1222, he marries Agnes de Beaujeu and they have a daughter but divorces her in 1227.
Then in 1232 he marries a third time.
What would the reasons for these divorces have been? Does anyone know?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Divorce medieval style
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Divorce medieval style
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1033.1187772297.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
These circumstances, according to the Church, are where it has been
established by due process that there was never a canonically valid marriage
in the first place.
Their divorce was on the grounds of consanguinity.
I don't recall that he divorced her, though my memoory is not reliable.
Maybe they were just seperated, or at any rate a divorce was apparently not
recognised: Agnes died on 11 or 12 July 1231, and Thibaut didn't remarry
until more than a year later, in September 1232.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1033.1187772297.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The Church of Rome tries to maintain that marriages are
forever and only under certain circumstances will the Church
allow a divorce or the annulment of a marriage.
These circumstances, according to the Church, are where it has been
established by due process that there was never a canonically valid marriage
in the first place.
What would the reasons have been for Thibaut IV-I, king
of Navarre and count of Champagne, who divorced not just
once but twice?
Born in 1201, he married in May 1220 Gertrud von Dagsburg
but divorces her in 1222. This marriage was childless.
Their divorce was on the grounds of consanguinity.
Then in the same year, 1222, he marries Agnes de Beaujeu
and they have a daughter but divorces her in 1227.
I don't recall that he divorced her, though my memoory is not reliable.
Maybe they were just seperated, or at any rate a divorce was apparently not
recognised: Agnes died on 11 or 12 July 1231, and Thibaut didn't remarry
until more than a year later, in September 1232.
Peter Stewart
-
Francisco Tavares de Alme
Re: Divorce medieval style
Dear Leo,
The Church of Rome never allows divorces nor the annulment of a
marriage. As Peter said, after a process in a special court - the
"Sacred Rota" - it can be decreed that the marriage was not
cannonically valid.
It has the same effect than a civil annulment. For the consorts it
works as if they were never married but for third parties, including
children, the effects of the marriage keep full validity until the day
of the Rota's decree. So the children do not become illegitimate and
it is no basis to the annulment of any transactions.
The process is normally complex and takes time and money but in
practice if not in law, the will of the consorts is decisive. In
medieval times the most common motive was consanguinity but, at least
in theory, a dispensation given a few years later could also validate
the marriage and I can not remember one case of such an event against
the will of the consorts.
Another motive in a childless marriage is the declaration of one of
the consorts that never had the intention of having children or that
he or her knew in advance that could not have children and did not
told it to the bride. This was also invoked in medieval times by
sovereigns or even by lords of entailed property or rich merchants
that needed an heir and nowadays, for instance, for the marriage of
Philippe Junot and Caroline of Monaco.
Best regards,
Francisco
On 22 Ago, 09:44, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
The Church of Rome never allows divorces nor the annulment of a
marriage. As Peter said, after a process in a special court - the
"Sacred Rota" - it can be decreed that the marriage was not
cannonically valid.
It has the same effect than a civil annulment. For the consorts it
works as if they were never married but for third parties, including
children, the effects of the marriage keep full validity until the day
of the Rota's decree. So the children do not become illegitimate and
it is no basis to the annulment of any transactions.
The process is normally complex and takes time and money but in
practice if not in law, the will of the consorts is decisive. In
medieval times the most common motive was consanguinity but, at least
in theory, a dispensation given a few years later could also validate
the marriage and I can not remember one case of such an event against
the will of the consorts.
Another motive in a childless marriage is the declaration of one of
the consorts that never had the intention of having children or that
he or her knew in advance that could not have children and did not
told it to the bride. This was also invoked in medieval times by
sovereigns or even by lords of entailed property or rich merchants
that needed an heir and nowadays, for instance, for the marriage of
Philippe Junot and Caroline of Monaco.
Best regards,
Francisco
On 22 Ago, 09:44, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
The Church of Rome tries to maintain that marriages are forever and only under certain circumstanceswill the Church allow a divorce or the annulment of a marriage.
What would the reasons have been for Thibaut IV-I, king of Navarre and count of Champagne, who divorced not just once but twice?
Born in 1201, he married in May 1220 Gertrud von Dagsburg but divorces her in 1222. This marriage was childless.
Then in the same year, 1222, he marries Agnes de Beaujeu and they have a daughter but divorces her in 1227.
Then in 1232 he marries a third time.
What would the reasons for these divorces have been? Does anyone know?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
CE Wood
Re: Divorce medieval style
and I can not remember one case of such an event against the will of the consorts.
As I recall, Joan, Fair Maid of Kent, was not too happy about the
annulment of her marriage to William Montagu because of supposed prior
contract with Thomas de Holand. Thomas was delighted, but not Joan,
who endured until Thomas finally died when she was free to marry whom
SHE chose, which she did.
CE Wood
On Aug 22, 5:08 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
<francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Leo,
The Church of Rome never allows divorces nor the annulment of a
marriage. As Peter said, after a process in a special court - the
"Sacred Rota" - it can be decreed that the marriage was not
cannonically valid.
It has the same effect than a civil annulment. For the consorts it
works as if they were never married but for third parties, including
children, the effects of the marriage keep full validity until the day
of the Rota's decree. So the children do not become illegitimate and
it is no basis to the annulment of any transactions.
The process is normally complex and takes time and money but in
practice if not in law, the will of the consorts is decisive. In
medieval times the most common motive was consanguinity but, at least
in theory, a dispensation given a few years later could also validate
the marriage and I can not remember one case of such an event against
the will of the consorts.
Another motive in a childless marriage is the declaration of one of
the consorts that never had the intention of having children or that
he or her knew in advance that could not have children and did not
told it to the bride. This was also invoked in medieval times by
sovereigns or even by lords of entailed property or rich merchants
that needed an heir and nowadays, for instance, for the marriage of
Philippe Junot and Caroline of Monaco.
Best regards,
Francisco
On 22 Ago, 09:44, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
The Church of Rome tries to maintain that marriages are forever and only under certain circumstanceswill the Church allow a divorce or the annulment of a marriage.
What would the reasons have been for Thibaut IV-I, king of Navarre and count of Champagne, who divorced not just once but twice?
Born in 1201, he married in May 1220 Gertrud von Dagsburg but divorces her in 1222. This marriage was childless.
Then in the same year, 1222, he marries Agnes de Beaujeu and they have a daughter but divorces her in 1227.
Then in 1232 he marries a third time.
What would the reasons for these divorces have been? Does anyone know?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Divorce Mediaeval Style
Indeed!
Great-Grandmother Joan, Fair Maid of Kent, was indeed a peach and smart as a
whip.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187803294.689414.90180@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Great-Grandmother Joan, Fair Maid of Kent, was indeed a peach and smart as a
whip.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187803294.689414.90180@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
and I can not remember one case of such an event against the will of the
consorts.
As I recall, Joan, Fair Maid of Kent, was not too happy about the
annulment of her marriage to William Montagu because of supposed prior
contract with Thomas de Holand. Thomas was delighted, but not Joan,
who endured until Thomas finally died when she was free to marry whom
SHE chose, which she did.
CE Wood
On Aug 22, 5:08 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Leo,
The Church of Rome never allows divorces nor the annulment of a
marriage. As Peter said, after a process in a special court - the
"Sacred Rota" - it can be decreed that the marriage was not
cannonically valid.
It has the same effect than a civil annulment. For the consorts it
works as if they were never married but for third parties, including
children, the effects of the marriage keep full validity until the day
of the Rota's decree. So the children do not become illegitimate and
it is no basis to the annulment of any transactions.
The process is normally complex and takes time and money but in
practice if not in law, the will of the consorts is decisive. In
medieval times the most common motive was consanguinity but, at least
in theory, a dispensation given a few years later could also validate
the marriage and I can not remember one case of such an event against
the will of the consorts.
Another motive in a childless marriage is the declaration of one of
the consorts that never had the intention of having children or that
he or her knew in advance that could not have children and did not
told it to the bride. This was also invoked in medieval times by
sovereigns or even by lords of entailed property or rich merchants
that needed an heir and nowadays, for instance, for the marriage of
Philippe Junot and Caroline of Monaco.
Best regards,
Francisco
On 22 Ago, 09:44, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
The Church of Rome tries to maintain that marriages are forever and
only under certain circumstanceswill the Church allow a divorce or the
annulment of a marriage.
What would the reasons have been for Thibaut IV-I, king of Navarre and
count of Champagne, who divorced not just once but twice?
Born in 1201, he married in May 1220 Gertrud von Dagsburg but divorces
her in 1222. This marriage was childless.
Then in the same year, 1222, he marries Agnes de Beaujeu and they have
a daughter but divorces her in 1227.
Then in 1232 he marries a third time.
What would the reasons for these divorces have been? Does anyone know?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Francisco Tavares de Alme
Re: Divorce medieval style
On 22 Ago, 18:21, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
I am sorry for not beeing clear. I meant against the will of both
consorts.
When there was a disagreement between them, the allegations of both
parts were weighted but I do not doubt that the "winner" was the most
powerfull or the one that could pay the best "lawyers" in Rome.
Often, there was a previous agreement and the case was presented to
Rota in a way that the decree could not be recused.
One has to take into account that there is a great difference between
the british judicial tradition of non written law and freedom of
decision by the judge and the roman tradition of written law where,
except in special cases, the judge is limited to the application of
the law to the facts presented by the parts.
Best regards,
Francisco
and I can not remember one case of such an event against the will of the consorts.
As I recall, Joan, Fair Maid of Kent, was not too happy about the
annulment of her marriage to William Montagu because of supposed prior
contract with Thomas de Holand. Thomas was delighted, but not Joan,
who endured until Thomas finally died when she was free to marry whom
SHE chose, which she did.
CE Wood
On Aug 22, 5:08 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
francisco.tavaresdealme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Leo,
The Church of Rome never allows divorces nor the annulment of a
marriage. As Peter said, after a process in a special court - the
"Sacred Rota" - it can be decreed that the marriage was not
cannonically valid.
It has the same effect than a civil annulment. For the consorts it
works as if they were never married but for third parties, including
children, the effects of the marriage keep full validity until the day
of the Rota's decree. So the children do not become illegitimate and
it is no basis to the annulment of any transactions.
The process is normally complex and takes time and money but in
practice if not in law, the will of the consorts is decisive. In
medieval times the most common motive was consanguinity but, at least
in theory, a dispensation given a few years later could also validate
the marriage and I can not remember one case of such an event against
the will of the consorts.
Another motive in a childless marriage is the declaration of one of
the consorts that never had the intention of having children or that
he or her knew in advance that could not have children and did not
told it to the bride. This was also invoked in medieval times by
sovereigns or even by lords of entailed property or rich merchants
that needed an heir and nowadays, for instance, for the marriage of
Philippe Junot and Caroline of Monaco.
Best regards,
Francisco
On 22 Ago, 09:44, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
The Church of Rome tries to maintain that marriages are forever and only under certain circumstanceswill the Church allow a divorce or the annulment of a marriage.
What would the reasons have been for Thibaut IV-I, king of Navarre and count of Champagne, who divorced not just once but twice?
Born in 1201, he married in May 1220 Gertrud von Dagsburg but divorces her in 1222. This marriage was childless.
Then in the same year, 1222, he marries Agnes de Beaujeu and they have a daughter but divorces her in 1227.
Then in 1232 he marries a third time.
What would the reasons for these divorces have been? Does anyone know?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia- Ocultar texto citado -
- Mostrar texto citado -
I am sorry for not beeing clear. I meant against the will of both
consorts.
When there was a disagreement between them, the allegations of both
parts were weighted but I do not doubt that the "winner" was the most
powerfull or the one that could pay the best "lawyers" in Rome.
Often, there was a previous agreement and the case was presented to
Rota in a way that the decree could not be recused.
One has to take into account that there is a great difference between
the british judicial tradition of non written law and freedom of
decision by the judge and the roman tradition of written law where,
except in special cases, the judge is limited to the application of
the law to the facts presented by the parts.
Best regards,
Francisco