The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 02:09:02

Dear Newsgroup ~

We were recently assured by one newsgroup "expert" that a couple could
be legally contracted to marry in medieval England at age seven, but
that marriage was delayed until puberty. While it is true that a
groom and bride had to be aged seven to give legal consent to their
proposed union, in fact parents often contracted their children to
marry before that age. So while the age of seven was needed for it
to be a legal contract, this is certainly a moot point. Fact is that
children below the age of seven were contracted by their parents in
medieval England on a regular basis.

As for the correct "age" of marriage, I know of NO source which tells
us specifically as what age marriages were consumated in the medieval
period. While I suspect most couples did wait until the bride had
reached puberty, I don't know this was always the case. In fact, I
present a situation below in which a young girl was married TWICE,
once at aged eight and the second time at age nine. This is clearly
before the the child's age of puberty! Even so, the first marriage
is presented in the lawsuit as being "lawful matrimony."

The case in question comes from an assize of novel dissesisin dated
1311 brought by one Richard de Manton and his wife Joan against Fulk
Fitz Warin, his son, Warin, and Joan the daughter of one Lawrence de
Bluntesdon who was his wife ("yoked to him in lawful matrimony"), and
the same person as she whom Richard named as his wife. They jointly
asked whether the assize ought to proceed. Richard replied that he
was ready to aver that Joan was his lawful wife, and the court
thereupon directed an inquiry to be made by the assize. The jurors
told the following strange story. Joan's father held the property in
question of Fulk Fitz Warin by knight's service and died in his
homage. Fulk gave the wardship of the lands and the marriage of Joan
the heiress, then eight years of age, to his son Warin, who forthwith
put her in the custody of the nuns at Burnham in Buckinghamshire, and
there married her. The child remained with the nuns a fortnight
only. During this time Fulk had demised a manor, to which the
services of the child's father had belonged to one William; and this
William thereupon claimed wardship, abducted the child and kept her in
his custody six months. William then sold the marriage of the child
and wardship of the land to a certain Ralph, the brother of the
plaintiff Richard. Joan remained for half a year in the custody of
Ralph who then gave her in marriage to his brother Richard, to whom he
also granted the custody of the tenements. This second marriage took
place in London when Joan was nine years of age; and during the three
following years Richard and the child lived together as man and wife.
Afterwards, while staying at Marlborough under the charge of a certain
Peter, she wished to escape from her husband Richard, and she told
Peter that she would like to have some young doves for dinner. Peter
and she went to the dovehouse. Peter entered the house; and she,
standing outside, closed the door behind him. She then escaped and
'transfered herself' to her first husband Warin, who thereupon with
his father Fulk ejected Richard from the tenements, for the recovery
of which Richard had brought the assize. The parties were given a day
at Westminster to hear judgement on this veridict; and then a second
day. On this second day the plaintiff was non-suited [Reference: G.
T. Turner, editor, Year Books of Edward II, 9 Selden Soc. 42) (1926):
xxxvii-xxxviii, 196-199].

Whatever we might think of a child being married by her ward at age
eight to his son, the fact is that such marriages took place in
medieval England. So while "experts" tell us that marriages were not
consumated until puberty, the truth is otherwise. That is another
reason why it is important to look at original medieval records, not
sanitized analysis provided by an :expert." The original records tell
us the truth, even if it offends the modern mind.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 03:28:19

Douglas Richardson wrote:
We were recently assured by one newsgroup "expert" that a couple could
be legally contracted to marry in medieval England at age seven, but
that marriage was delayed until puberty. While it is true that a
groom and bride had to be aged seven to give legal consent to their
proposed union, in fact parents often contracted their children to
marry before that age. So while the age of seven was needed for it
to be a legal contract, this is certainly a moot point. Fact is that
children below the age of seven were contracted by their parents in
medieval England on a regular basis.

As for the correct "age" of marriage, I know of NO source which tells
us specifically as what age marriages were consumated in the medieval
period. While I suspect most couples did wait until the bride had
reached puberty, I don't know this was always the case. In fact, I
present a situation below in which a young girl was married TWICE,
once at aged eight and the second time at age nine. This is clearly
before the the child's age of puberty! Even so, the first marriage
is presented in the lawsuit as being "lawful matrimony."

The case in question comes from an assize of novel dissesisin dated
1311 brought by one Richard de Manton and his wife Joan against Fulk
Fitz Warin, his son, Warin, and Joan the daughter of one Lawrence de
Bluntesdon who was his wife ("yoked to him in lawful matrimony"), and
the same person as she whom Richard named as his wife. They jointly
asked whether the assize ought to proceed. Richard replied that he
was ready to aver that Joan was his lawful wife, and the court
thereupon directed an inquiry to be made by the assize. The jurors
told the following strange story. Joan's father held the property in
question of Fulk Fitz Warin by knight's service and died in his
homage. Fulk gave the wardship of the lands and the marriage of Joan
the heiress, then eight years of age, to his son Warin, who forthwith
put her in the custody of the nuns at Burnham in Buckinghamshire, and
there married her. The child remained with the nuns a fortnight
only. During this time Fulk had demised a manor, to which the
services of the child's father had belonged to one William; and this
William thereupon claimed wardship, abducted the child and kept her in
his custody six months. William then sold the marriage of the child
and wardship of the land to a certain Ralph, the brother of the
plaintiff Richard. Joan remained for half a year in the custody of
Ralph who then gave her in marriage to his brother Richard, to whom he
also granted the custody of the tenements. This second marriage took
place in London when Joan was nine years of age; and during the three
following years Richard and the child lived together as man and wife.
Afterwards, while staying at Marlborough under the charge of a certain
Peter, she wished to escape from her husband Richard, and she told
Peter that she would like to have some young doves for dinner. Peter
and she went to the dovehouse. Peter entered the house; and she,
standing outside, closed the door behind him. She then escaped and
'transfered herself' to her first husband Warin, who thereupon with
his father Fulk ejected Richard from the tenements, for the recovery
of which Richard had brought the assize. The parties were given a day
at Westminster to hear judgement on this veridict; and then a second
day. On this second day the plaintiff was non-suited [Reference: G.
T. Turner, editor, Year Books of Edward II, 9 Selden Soc. 42) (1926):
xxxvii-xxxviii, 196-199].

Whatever we might think of a child being married by her ward at age
eight to his son, the fact is that such marriages took place in
medieval England. So while "experts" tell us that marriages were not
consumated until puberty, the truth is otherwise. That is another
reason why it is important to look at original medieval records, not
sanitized analysis provided by an :expert." The original records tell
us the truth, even if it offends the modern mind.

You know, you have got so excited by this thought of under-age marriages,
that you have failed to keep track of who is the ward and who the guardian
:-)
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 04:00:03

Fulk Fitz Warin had the wardship and marriage of Joan, daughter of
Lawrence de Bluntesdon, as the said Lawrence had been Fulk's tenant.
This is what allowed him to marry her to his son, Warin, even though
Joan was only aged eight years.

Fulk subsequently demised the property held by Lawrence de Bluntesdon
to another party, William, who believed that gave him the wardship and
marriage of Joan as well. William subsequently sold the marriage and
wardship of Joan to Ralph.

Unfortunately Fulk had already married the girl to his son. So, all
William got was the overlordship of the property. And all Ralph got
was nothing.

So yes, Joan had been married to her guardian's son at age eight.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. If you read the testimony of the jurors closely, they do not say
that the marriage of Warin and Joan had been consumated, only that
they were married. This may just mean that Warin and Joan were
contracted to marry. Joan being over the age of consent (age seven)
could have agreed to a legally binding contract of marriage. This
would have been treated as if it was a de facto marriage. The second
marriage of Joan at age nine was, however, clearly said to have been
consumated. The jurors clearly state that Joan and Richard lived
together as "man and wife" for three years. The obvious meaning is
that they shared the same bed.

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 nov 2007 04:22:02

Although an enthusiastic newsgroup poster has stated that a bride and
groom had to be seven years old to give legal consent, I know of no
such source claiming that. Perhaps that poster can tell us what
source claims that at seven a groom could give legal consent to his
own marriage ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 05:00:03

On Nov 14, 10:21 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Although an enthusiastic newsgroup poster has stated that a bride and
groom had to be seven years old to give legal consent, I know of no
such source claiming that. Perhaps that poster can tell us what
source claims that at seven a groom could give legal consent to his
own marriage ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Age To Marry In Medieval England

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 05:07:55

Well, yes that is reportedly true -- on 15 January 1478, in St. Stephen's
Chapel, Westminster, England.

Anne then reportedly died in November 1481.

But does this really answer the Original Question concerning the groom's
giving legal consent to his own marriage?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<viridmontane@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2246c4fa-e703-4aed-9bd8-0ae67c5d7b4c@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 nov 2007 05:08:02

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 07:43:03

On Nov 14, 9:05 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:
<
< > I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of
< > Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
< > Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481.
Richard ,
< > now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
< > 1483 along with his older brother Edward V.
<
< -----------
< Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at
< ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question
< before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
< to such a marriage?
<
< It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.
<
< Will Johnson

You can dispute it all you want, Will, but seven was the age of legal
consent for both parties for a legally binding contract for marriage.
This has all been hashed out in the past on soc.genealogy.medieval.
Parents could and did contract their children to marry before that
age, however. That has confused the issue. Regardless, the church's
position on the matter regarding a LEGAL contract is very clear. What
is unclear is the issue as to when the marriage was to be consumated.
As we can see from the example I've just given, a couple could
consumate the marriage when the girl was nine. I believe this was
considered normal by medieval standards.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 07:59:02

On Nov 15, 7:40 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:05 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481.
Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Will Johnson

You can dispute it all you want, Will, but seven was the age of legal
consent for both parties for a legally binding contract for marriage.
This has all been hashed out in the past on soc.genealogy.medieval.
Parents could and did contract their children to marry before that
age, however. That has confused the issue. Regardless, the church's
position on the matter regarding a LEGAL contract is very clear. What
is unclear is the issue as to when the marriage was to be consumated.
As we can see from the example I've just given, a couple could
consumate the marriage when the girl was nine. I believe this was
considered normal by medieval standards.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Can your substantiate your belief that consummation of marriage by
nine year olds "was considered normal by medieval standards."? One
possible example does not make it "normal". Or is this yet another
Richardson rule of thumb?

David

Vance Mead

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Vance Mead » 15 nov 2007 08:00:04

I can't give a source, but I've read in several places that the usual
age for consent and consummation was about 12 or 13 for girls and 14
or 15 for boys. Of course, most people married quite a lot later. When
the parish records started, the average age of marriage was in the mid-
twenties for working people, a bit earlier for gentry.
Vance




Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 08:16:05

wjhonson wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.


-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

So do I. Douglas seems to be getting muddled between marriage and
betrothal. Both were legally-binding contracts. A betrothal could be
arranged between infants, which was a binding contract for both the
infants/children to marry when they were older, usually when the girl
reached puberty. Betrothals at age seven were more the norm, the same
age a lower-class lad was farmed out to his apprenticeship, but in this
case, the girl was farmed out to the family into which she had been
betrothed, to be raised by that family.

AGw. (Usenet)

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av AGw. (Usenet) » 15 nov 2007 09:01:02

On Nov 15, 4:05 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

Blackstone's Commentaries has the ages as 12 for girls and 14 for
boys, a situation that was still unchanged as late as the 1920s. I
don't know for a fact that this also represented the law during the
middle ages, but it seems probable; marriage was almost entirely
unregulated by statute prior to the mid-eighteenth century (shortly
before when Blackstone was writing).

A footnote in Halsbury's 1st edition agrees with remarks made by
Blackstone:
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only
voidable by either party on the person under age reaching the age of
consent".

Neither work cites either a statutory authority or a judgment for the
ages, which implies that they were a matter of long-established common
law in England.


--
AGw.

John Briggs

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 14:01:24

AGw. (Usenet) wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:05 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de
Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in
1481. Richard , now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the
Tower of London in 1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question before us is, at what age could a child give *its own*
legal consent to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Blackstone's Commentaries has the ages as 12 for girls and 14 for
boys, a situation that was still unchanged as late as the 1920s. I
don't know for a fact that this also represented the law during the
middle ages, but it seems probable; marriage was almost entirely
unregulated by statute prior to the mid-eighteenth century (shortly
before when Blackstone was writing).

A footnote in Halsbury's 1st edition agrees with remarks made by
Blackstone:
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only
voidable by either party on the person under age reaching the age of
consent".

Neither work cites either a statutory authority or a judgment for the
ages, which implies that they were a matter of long-established common
law in England.

Common Law would have taken over from Canon Law after the Reformation.
--
John Briggs

Don Aitken

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Don Aitken » 15 nov 2007 17:33:39

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:24 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

AGw. (Usenet) wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:05 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de
Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in
1481. Richard , now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the
Tower of London in 1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question before us is, at what age could a child give *its own*
legal consent to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Blackstone's Commentaries has the ages as 12 for girls and 14 for
boys, a situation that was still unchanged as late as the 1920s. I
don't know for a fact that this also represented the law during the
middle ages, but it seems probable; marriage was almost entirely
unregulated by statute prior to the mid-eighteenth century (shortly
before when Blackstone was writing).

A footnote in Halsbury's 1st edition agrees with remarks made by
Blackstone:
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only
voidable by either party on the person under age reaching the age of
consent".

Neither work cites either a statutory authority or a judgment for the
ages, which implies that they were a matter of long-established common
law in England.

Common Law would have taken over from Canon Law after the Reformation.

The rule on this point was identical in the two systems. Common law
simply adopted the canon law rule laid down by the jurist Gratian and
Pope Gregory IX in the twelfth century, and reaffirmed by Innocent III
in the thirteenth. See Stone "The Road to Divorce", which is by way of
being the definitive work on all aspects of the history of the law of
marriage and divorce in England.

The common law, it should be noted, did not adopt all of the canon law
rules; in particular, the rule that a valid marriage was created by
the consent of the parties ("contract marriage") even without a formal
ceremony, was never accepted, and, in general, such a marriage, while
undoubtedly valid in ecclesiastical law, had no effect on property
rights; the wife had no claim to dower, and the children could not
inherit as legitimate heirs. There are exceptions, though; Stone
quotes one from Yorkshire in 1286 where inheritance was successfully
claimed "according to local custom".

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

JohnR

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av JohnR » 15 nov 2007 19:20:04

On Nov 15, 3:21 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Although an enthusiastic newsgroup poster has stated that a bride and
groom had to be seven years old to give legal consent, I know of no
such source claiming that. Perhaps that poster can tell us what
source claims that at seven a groom could give legal consent to his
own marriage ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Pollock & Maitland in their History of English Law II,387 (I am using
the first edition) state:

At the age of seven years a child was capable of consent, but the
marriage remained voidable so long as either of the parties to it was
below the age at which it could be consummated. A presumption fixed
this age at fourteen for boys and twelve years for girls. In case only
one of the parties was below that age, the marriage could be avoided
by that party but was binding on the other.

John

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 19:40:04

On Nov 14, 11:55 pm, david11000ca...@yahoo.fr wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:40 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:



On Nov 14, 9:05 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481.
Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Will Johnson

You can dispute it all you want, Will, but seven was the age of legal
consent for both parties for a legally binding contract for marriage.
This has all been hashed out in the past on soc.genealogy.medieval.
Parents could and did contract their children to marry before that
age, however. That has confused the issue. Regardless, the church's
position on the matter regarding a LEGAL contract is very clear. What
is unclear is the issue as to when the marriage was to be consumated.
As we can see from the example I've just given, a couple could
consumate the marriage when the girl was nine. I believe this was
considered normal by medieval standards.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Can your substantiate your belief that consummation of marriage by
nine year olds "was considered normal by medieval standards."? One
possible example does not make it "normal". Or is this yet another
Richardson rule of thumb?

David

We have a case here where the couple clearly consumated the marriage
when the girl was nine. That was allowable. Her other marriage at
even an earlier age was likewise stated to be "legal matrimony." If
the marriage at age eight was considered legal, then surely the second
marriage at age nine which was consumated would be considered normal,
too.

Here's a Richardson rule of thumb for you: Don't judge medieval people
by modern standards. Medieval people had their own value system and
set of ethics. In other words, they didn't always wait to puberty to
consumate the marriage, much as we might want to think that was the
case.

Since I've put forth a case which shows that mariage by a nine year
old girl was acceptable, now it's your turn. Please post an example
of a case where it wasn't allowable or acceptable.

DR

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 15 nov 2007 19:51:06

On Nov 15, 10:34 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 11:55 pm, david11000ca...@yahoo.fr wrote:





On Nov 15, 7:40 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 9:05 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481.
Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Will Johnson

You can dispute it all you want, Will, but seven was the age of legal
consent for both parties for a legally binding contract for marriage.
This has all been hashed out in the past on soc.genealogy.medieval.
Parents could and did contract their children to marry before that
age, however. That has confused the issue. Regardless, the church's
position on the matter regarding a LEGAL contract is very clear. What
is unclear is the issue as to when the marriage was to be consumated.
As we can see from the example I've just given, a couple could
consumate the marriage when the girl was nine. I believe this was
considered normal by medieval standards.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Can your substantiate your belief that consummation of marriage by
nine year olds "was considered normal by medieval standards."? One
possible example does not make it "normal". Or is this yet another
Richardson rule of thumb?

David

We have a case here where the couple clearly consumated the marriage
when the girl was nine. That was allowable. Her other marriage at
even an earlier age was likewise stated to be "legal matrimony." If
the marriage at age eight was considered legal, then surely the second
marriage at age nine which was consumated would be considered normal,
too.

Here's a Richardson rule of thumb for you: Don't judge medieval people
by modern standards. Medieval people had their own value system and
set of ethics. In other words, they didn't always wait to puberty to
consumate the marriage, much as we might want to think that was the
case.

Since I've put forth a case which shows that mariage by a nine year
old girl was acceptable, now it's your turn. Please post an example
of a case where it wasn't allowable or acceptable.

-----------------------------------------------

You're overstating the case. There is no proof the marriage was
"consummated", and the mere fact that on one side of the case, a
person *claims* that they did, is not sufficient in the case of large
gain, that they actually did.

Obviously the groom had something to gain by making his claim that
they were married.

Here's a Johnson rule of thumb, Richardson like a genealogical
magician proceeds from a vague document, to a certain judgement and
then a series of attacks on anyone disputing his claim.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 19:52:02

Bracton who is usually the source quoted for such matters states that
before a woman could be considered to be of full age (and given her
lands), she must demonstrate that she can and knows how to order her
house and do the things that belong to the arrangement and management
of a house. This can not be before aged 14 or 15 since such things
require discretion and understanding. This is called the "cove and
keye" principle.

This is discussed more fully at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HCNK1K ... Lu1lWCFgdc

Thus, even if a marriage was consumated, the woman would not be given
her lands until she had reached a certain level of maturity. I think
this is all rather clearly indicated in contemporary medieval records.

While this is certainly related to the things that pressured men to
consumate marriages to girls who were aged nine, it obviously is not
the same thing. More often than not, I think early consumation was
caused by something called hormones. And I don't think you'll read
anything about hormones in Bracton, although I'm sure he had a few of
them himself.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 19:57:58

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Bracton who is usually the source quoted for such matters states that
before a woman could be considered to be of full age (and given her
lands), she must demonstrate that she can and knows how to order her
house and do the things that belong to the arrangement and management
of a house. This can not be before aged 14 or 15 since such things
require discretion and understanding. This is called the "cove and
keye" principle.

This is discussed more fully at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HCNK1K ... Lu1lWCFgdc

Thus, even if a marriage was consumated, the woman would not be given
her lands until she had reached a certain level of maturity. I think
this is all rather clearly indicated in contemporary medieval records.

While this is certainly related to the things that pressured men to
consumate marriages to girls who were aged nine, it obviously is not
the same thing. More often than not, I think early consumation was
caused by something called hormones. And I don't think you'll read
anything about hormones in Bracton, although I'm sure he had a few of
them himself.

You say not to put modern values onto historical events. Quite
admirable. Empathy is part of the historical process.

However, girls of 9 today are quite mature and many of them have started
menstruation and, technically, can conceive children.

In Victorian times, girls often didn't start menstruating until they
were 17 years of age. During my own era, the average age was about 14.

The only point of a medieval marriage, was the merger of two business
ventures (landholdings) and the eventual appointment of a new Director
(the heir and subsequently, his heir). Begetting the children was
paramount. Sex was not the particular issue and to tamper with a girl
before she could reproduce was a dangerous game to play.

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 20:05:07

On Nov 15, 12:16 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
wjhonson wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

So do I. Douglas seems to be getting muddled between marriage and
betrothal. Both were legally-binding contracts. A betrothal could be
arranged between infants, which was a binding contract for both the
infants/children to marry when they were older, usually when the girl
reached puberty. Betrothals at age seven were more the norm, the same
age a lower-class lad was farmed out to his apprenticeship, but in this
case, the girl was farmed out to the family into which she had been
betrothed, to be raised by that family.

A betrothal in medieval times was considered de facto marriage. The
only people who are muddled about this are us modern folk, who like to
think that our modern concept of "engagement" is the same equivalent
of the medieval "betrothal." It is NOT the same thing. Once the
contract to marry was accepted by all parties and legal age had been
met, the couple was considered man and wife even before consumation.
In fact, a woman whose marriage who was not consumated could obtain
dower in her husband's lands if he died early.

Couples had to be at least age seven and give consent for it to be a
binding betrothal. This was church law. It had nothing to do with
what social class the person was.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 20:11:04

Will - You need to read the discussion of the lawsuit again.

The jurors stated that the man and the young girl lived together as
man and wife for three years. That meant they shared the same bed.
Had that not been the case, the girl would have still been living with
her guardian.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 20:15:08

On Nov 15, 11:57 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Bracton who is usually the source quoted for such matters states that
before a woman could be considered to be of full age (and given her
lands), she must demonstrate that she can and knows how to order her
house and do the things that belong to the arrangement and management
of a house. This can not be before aged 14 or 15 since such things
require discretion and understanding. This is called the "cove and
keye" principle.

This is discussed more fully at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HCNK1K ... cove+and...

Thus, even if a marriage was consumated, the woman would not be given
her lands until she had reached a certain level of maturity. I think
this is all rather clearly indicated in contemporary medieval records.

While this is certainly related to the things that pressured men to
consumate marriages to girls who were aged nine, it obviously is not
the same thing. More often than not, I think early consumation was
caused by something called hormones. And I don't think you'll read
anything about hormones in Bracton, although I'm sure he had a few of
them himself.

You say not to put modern values onto historical events. Quite
admirable. Empathy is part of the historical process.

However, girls of 9 today are quite mature and many of them have started
menstruation and, technically, can conceive children.

In Victorian times, girls often didn't start menstruating until they
were 17 years of age. During my own era, the average age was about 14.

The only point of a medieval marriage, was the merger of two business
ventures (landholdings) and the eventual appointment of a new Director
(the heir and subsequently, his heir). Begetting the children was
paramount. Sex was not the particular issue and to tamper with a girl
before she could reproduce was a dangerous game to play.

I totally agree. Sometimes early marriage backfired. The girl
conceived too early, and she and her child died in childbirth.

DR

mhollick@mac.com

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av mhollick@mac.com » 15 nov 2007 21:03:02

I will add from: R.H. Helmholz, "Marriage Litigation in Medieval
England" (Gaunt & Sons, 1975, reprinted by Cambridge University Press,
1986), p. 98-99: Canon law held that a marriage contracted by a child
below the age of seven was void. A marriage contracted between seven
and puberty was not invalid. It had rather a suspended quality.
[Source: A. Esmein, Le Mariage en droit canonique (2 vols., Paris,
1891), I:211-16.] The child had the choice of ratifying the contract
or of reclaiming against it on reaching the age of puberty. Subject
to two rather difficult exceptions, the age of puberty was fixed at
fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. [Source: Decretales Gregorii
IX, Liber I, tit. I, CANON 1 and W. Lyndwood, Provinciale (sue
Constitutiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679) at 272]. This somewhat
disagrees with Lawrence Stone "Road to Divorce England
1530-1987" (Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 52: In the thirteenth
century, Pope Innocent III, following the canon lawyer Gratian and
Pope Gregory IX in the twelfth, had decreed that free consent of both
spouses, not the formal solemnities by a priest or in a church, was
the sole essence of marriage. Consequently , a valid and binding
marriage was created by a mere verbal exchange of vows to this effect
between a man and a woman over the age of consent (14 and 16,
respectively), witnessed by two persons, and expressed in the present
tense. [source: Esmein again, I:95-137 and C. Donahue, Jr. "The Policy
of Alexander the Third's Consent Theory of Marriage" from the
Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law
(1976)].

All of this ended with the Council of Trent in 1563 when the Catholic
church put an end to the confusion and insisted that the validity of
marriage depended on a public ceremony. This held true for Catholic
Europe, and since England was in the middle of the Reformation, it
ignored the Council of Trent and things were not regulated legally
until the Marriage Act of 1753.

Renia

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 23:37:02

Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:16 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

wjhonson wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

So do I. Douglas seems to be getting muddled between marriage and
betrothal. Both were legally-binding contracts. A betrothal could be
arranged between infants, which was a binding contract for both the
infants/children to marry when they were older, usually when the girl
reached puberty. Betrothals at age seven were more the norm, the same
age a lower-class lad was farmed out to his apprenticeship, but in this
case, the girl was farmed out to the family into which she had been
betrothed, to be raised by that family.


A betrothal in medieval times was considered de facto marriage. The
only people who are muddled about this are us modern folk, who like to
think that our modern concept of "engagement" is the same equivalent
of the medieval "betrothal." It is NOT the same thing. Once the
contract to marry was accepted by all parties and legal age had been
met, the couple was considered man and wife even before consumation.
In fact, a woman whose marriage who was not consumated could obtain
dower in her husband's lands if he died early.

Couples had to be at least age seven and give consent for it to be a
binding betrothal. This was church law. It had nothing to do with
what social class the person was.

A betrothal wasn't the marriage itself but a contract to marry and was
binding.

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 15 nov 2007 23:38:02

On 15 nov, 20:01, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:16 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:





wjhonson wrote:
On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

So do I. Douglas seems to be getting muddled between marriage and
betrothal. Both were legally-binding contracts. A betrothal could be
arranged between infants, which was a binding contract for both the
infants/children to marry when they were older, usually when the girl
reached puberty. Betrothals at age seven were more the norm, the same
age a lower-class lad was farmed out to his apprenticeship, but in this
case, the girl was farmed out to the family into which she had been
betrothed, to be raised by that family.

A betrothal in medieval times was considered de facto marriage.

In the Church law of marriage as it was stabilised since the 13th
century, what we call betrothal is a matrimonium de futuro, that is
the engagement to a future marriage. As such, it has some of the
effects of a full marriage (matrimonium de praesenti) and it can
become one in some circumstances (see below). But it is not per se a
full marriage (that is, an indissoluble link which can not be
dissolved and a sacrament) and it is simply dissolved if the two
engaged people agree to do so (see X, 4, I, 2). A betrothal
(matrimonium de futuro) can be contracted since the age of seven
(althoug of course parents can take an engagement before that, but
then it needs an explicit rattification when the children are 7 years
old): that is a contract, not a sacrament. A marriage (matrimonium de
praesenti) can not be contracted before the boy reaches the age of 14
and the girl the age of 12.

<...>
Once the
contract to marry was accepted by all parties and legal age had been
met, the couple was considered man and wife even before consumation.

That is rather the contrary. If there has been only a betrothal
(matrimonium de futuro) and the legal age is met, there is no
definitive marriage until the vows have been actually and orally
exchanged by the potential spouses, EXCEPT in case the marriage is
consummated (see X, 4, I, 30). Of course, one must not conclude from
that that in general consummation is essential to marriage : indeed,
conversely, if the vows have been exchanged but there is no
consummation, the marriage is nevertheless a full and valid marriage
(although it is still susceptible to be dissolved, for example if one
of the spouses enter in a monastery: see X, 3, XXXII, 10 and 14, or by
the authority of the pope).

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 15 nov 2007 23:45:04

On 15 nov, 23:37, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 12:16 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

wjhonson wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son of
Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de Mowbray,
Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in 1481. Richard ,
now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the Tower of London in
1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

-----------
Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married at
ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the question
before us is, at what age could a child give *its own* legal consent
to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that statement.

So do I. Douglas seems to be getting muddled between marriage and
betrothal. Both were legally-binding contracts. A betrothal could be
arranged between infants, which was a binding contract for both the
infants/children to marry when they were older, usually when the girl
reached puberty. Betrothals at age seven were more the norm, the same
age a lower-class lad was farmed out to his apprenticeship, but in this
case, the girl was farmed out to the family into which she had been
betrothed, to be raised by that family.

A betrothal in medieval times was considered de facto marriage. The
only people who are muddled about this are us modern folk, who like to
think that our modern concept of "engagement" is the same equivalent
of the medieval "betrothal." It is NOT the same thing. Once the
contract to marry was accepted by all parties and legal age had been
met, the couple was considered man and wife even before consumation.
In fact, a woman whose marriage who was not consumated could obtain
dower in her husband's lands if he died early.

Couples had to be at least age seven and give consent for it to be a
binding betrothal. This was church law. It had nothing to do with
what social class the person was.

A betrothal wasn't the marriage itself but a contract to marry and was
binding.

Indeed. The reason why Richardson seems to be muddled here is that a
betrothal is a "matrimonium de futuro": since he sees the word
"matrimonium", he jumps to the conclusion that a betrothal is a
marriage, without taking into account the "de futuro". That being
said, the distinction is not so clear cut since the betrothal has some
of the effects of a marriage and can easily become one. But it is not
one since it is not a sacrament and it is not impossible to dissolve,
which are the two caracteristics of the western medieval marriage.

Pierre

wjhonson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av wjhonson » 16 nov 2007 00:24:02

The idea that a bride and groom *living together* (or he claiming it)
meant they "shared the same bed" is not in accord with any credible
authority on the matter.

Douglas Richardson is not a credible authority, as we all know.

The idea that this has all been hashed out in the archives is just a
smokescreen to try to persuade that we all previously agreed, when in
fact, we all did no such thing.

A betrothel was only legally binding on the signers, if the bride and/
or groom did not consent, then they themselves were not bound to
proceed with the marriage. This is clear. Pope Alexander's statement
applied to the specific case where a couple *is* living together and
there *is* apparent or attempted consummation *prior* to the age at
which there should be. He states that in such a case, the marriage is
not deemed binding by that fact alone, there still has to be consent
on both sides.

A contrary interpretation of what he said, would make no sense, imho.
DR can repeat his claim over and again, that does not make it in-
accord with the known evidence.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 01:07:02

On Nov 15, 4:23 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< Douglas Richardson is not a credible authority, as we all know.
<
< Will Johnson

I have an opinion same as you. That's all.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Cecily Plantagenet's first marriage to Ralph Scrope

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 nov 2007 18:21:02

Dear Martin ~

Thank you for posting this information from the Helmholz book. Much
appreciated. His information is "spot on" as they say in Britain.

Mr. Helmholz, by the way, is the person who found the evidence of the
divorce of Cecily Plantagenet (daughter of King Edward IV) from her
first husband, Ralph Scrope of Upsall. On page 160, note 89, he
reports the folliowing information:

"York Consistory Act Book 4, fo.88r (1486) is a suit between 'preclara
ac nobilis domina domina Cecilia Plantagenet contra Radulphum Scrope
de Upsall."

This marriage was previously mentioned to by the Tudor historian,
Polydore Vergil, who wrote: "Henry [Tudor, afterwards King Henry VII]...
he departyd to Roan [Rouen]. While he taryed here, and riggyd his
navy at the mouth of Seyne, a rumor came unto his eare that king
Richard, his wife being dead, was amyndyd to mary Elizabeth, his
brother Edwardes dowghter, and that he had maryed Cecyly, Edwards
other daughter, unto an obscure man of no reputation." [Reference:
Ellis, Three Books of Polydore Vergil's English Hist. (Camden Soc. 29)
(1844): 215].

Unfortunately, until Mr. Helmholz unearthed the evidence of the
divorce, no one knew the name of Cecily Plantagenet's first husband.
Some years ago, when I was reading through the Helmholz book, I
noticed the reference to Cecily's divorce buried in the footnote and
realized about whom he was speaking. Cecily's husband, Ralph Scrope,
of Upsall, Yorkshire wasn't exactly "an obscure man of no reputation,"
but he was definitely below Cecily's social rank. The marriage would
have been considered a disparagement to Cecily, which is clearly the
point Polydore Vergil was trying to make.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Nov 15, 1:01 pm, "mholl...@mac.com" <mholl...@mac.com> wrote:
< I will add from: R.H. Helmholz, "Marriage Litigation in Medieval
< England" (Gaunt & Sons, 1975, reprinted by Cambridge University
Press,
< 1986), p. 98-99:

< Canon law held that a marriage contracted by a child
< below the age of seven was void. A marriage contracted between
seven
< and puberty was not invalid. It had rather a suspended quality.
< [Source: A. Esmein, Le Mariage en droit canonique (2 vols., Paris,
< 1891), I:211-16.] The child had the choice of ratifying the
contract
< or of reclaiming against it on reaching the age of puberty. Subject
< to two rather difficult exceptions, the age of puberty was fixed at
< fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. [Source: Decretales Gregorii
< IX, Liber I, tit. I, CANON 1 and W. Lyndwood, Provinciale (sue
< Constitutiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679) at 272]. This somewhat
< disagrees with Lawrence Stone "Road to Divorce England
< 1530-1987" (Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 52: In the thirteenth
< century, Pope Innocent III, following the canon lawyer Gratian and
< Pope Gregory IX in the twelfth, had decreed that free consent of
both
< spouses, not the formal solemnities by a priest or in a church, was
< the sole essence of marriage. Consequently , a valid and binding
< marriage was created by a mere verbal exchange of vows to this
effect
< between a man and a woman over the age of consent (14 and 16,
< respectively), witnessed by two persons, and expressed in the
present
< tense. [source: Esmein again, I:95-137 and C. Donahue, Jr. "The
Policy
< of Alexander the Third's Consent Theory of Marriage" from the
< Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon
Law
< (1976)].
<
< All of this ended with the Council of Trent in 1563 when the
Catholic
< church put an end to the confusion and insisted that the validity of
< marriage depended on a public ceremony. This held true for Catholic
< Europe, and since England was in the middle of the Reformation, it
< ignored the Council of Trent and things were not regulated legally
< until the Marriage Act of 1753.

Mary Jane Battaglia

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Mary Jane Battaglia » 18 nov 2007 23:29:51

Regarding Medieval Contracts and Marriages:

It is interesting to note that in London, June 9, 1483, Robert
Stillington (Bishop of Bath and Wells) appeared at a meeting of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal . He "brought in instruments, authentic doctors,
proctors and notaries of the law with divers witnesses" to reveal that the
late King Edward IV (died April 9, 1483), had some three years prior to his
"secret marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville, entered into a "precontract" to
marry the Lady Eleanor Butler.

The contract, witnessed by Stillington, had an effect in canon
law similar to that of a formal marriage. Hence Edward's marriage to
Elizabeth was bigamous and their children were illegitimate and could not
inherit the throne.

On Sunday, June 22, 1483, Dr. Ralph Shaa, a doctor of theology
from Cambridge, delivered a sermon at St Paul's Cross in London, in which he
told the people of the invalidity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville and the illegitimacy of Edward's sons. On June 24th the duke of
Buckingham made a similar speech at the Guildhall, stating that Edward "was
never lawfully married unto ye Quene," having another wife at the time.

On the next day, Parliament convened and by resolution, directed
that a "Rolle" be presented to Richard, duke of York and brother of Edward,
calling upon him to accept the crown. The petition, presented on June 26,
expressly referred to the Eleanor Butler precontract and to the illegitimacy
of Edward's sons. Straightaway, the duke of York consented to assume the
throne and thereafter reigned as King Richard III.



Mary Jane Battaglia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Aitken" <don-aitken@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England


On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:24 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

AGw. (Usenet) wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:05 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de
Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in
1481. Richard , now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the
Tower of London in 1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question before us is, at what age could a child give *its own*
legal consent to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Blackstone's Commentaries has the ages as 12 for girls and 14 for
boys, a situation that was still unchanged as late as the 1920s. I
don't know for a fact that this also represented the law during the
middle ages, but it seems probable; marriage was almost entirely
unregulated by statute prior to the mid-eighteenth century (shortly
before when Blackstone was writing).

A footnote in Halsbury's 1st edition agrees with remarks made by
Blackstone:
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only
voidable by either party on the person under age reaching the age of
consent".

Neither work cites either a statutory authority or a judgment for the
ages, which implies that they were a matter of long-established common
law in England.

Common Law would have taken over from Canon Law after the Reformation.

The rule on this point was identical in the two systems. Common law
simply adopted the canon law rule laid down by the jurist Gratian and
Pope Gregory IX in the twelfth century, and reaffirmed by Innocent III
in the thirteenth. See Stone "The Road to Divorce", which is by way of
being the definitive work on all aspects of the history of the law of
marriage and divorce in England.

The common law, it should be noted, did not adopt all of the canon law
rules; in particular, the rule that a valid marriage was created by
the consent of the parties ("contract marriage") even without a formal
ceremony, was never accepted, and, in general, such a marriage, while
undoubtedly valid in ecclesiastical law, had no effect on property
rights; the wife had no claim to dower, and the children could not
inherit as legitimate heirs. There are exceptions, though; Stone
quotes one from Yorkshire in 1286 where inheritance was successfully
claimed "according to local custom".

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2007 02:40:06

On Nov 18, 5:29 pm, "Mary Jane Battaglia" <mjb...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Regarding Medieval Contracts and Marriages:

It is interesting to note that in London, June 9, 1483, Robert
Stillington (Bishop of Bath and Wells) appeared at a meeting of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal . He "brought in instruments, authentic doctors,
proctors and notaries of the law with divers witnesses" to reveal that the
late King Edward IV (died April 9, 1483), had some three years prior to his
"secret marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville, entered into a "precontract" to
marry the Lady Eleanor Butler.

The contract, witnessed by Stillington, had an effect in canon
law similar to that of a formal marriage. Hence Edward's marriage to
Elizabeth was bigamous and their children were illegitimate and could not
inherit the throne.

On Sunday, June 22, 1483, Dr. Ralph Shaa, a doctor of theology
from Cambridge, delivered a sermon at St Paul's Cross in London, in which he
told the people of the invalidity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth
Woodville and the illegitimacy of Edward's sons. On June 24th the duke of
Buckingham made a similar speech at the Guildhall, stating that Edward "was
never lawfully married unto ye Quene," having another wife at the time.

On the next day, Parliament convened and by resolution, directed
that a "Rolle" be presented to Richard, duke of York and brother of Edward,
calling upon him to accept the crown. The petition, presented on June 26,
expressly referred to the Eleanor Butler precontract and to the illegitimacy
of Edward's sons. Straightaway, the duke of York consented to assume the
throne and thereafter reigned as King Richard III.

Mary Jane Battaglia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Aitken" <don-ait...@freeuk.com

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: The Age to Marry in Medieval England

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:24 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

AGw. (Usenet) wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:05 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:59 pm, viridmont...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that Richard of Shrewsbury, (1st Duke of York, younger son
of Edward IV) was married at age 4 to the 5 year old Anne de
Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk. She died about 3 years later, in
1481. Richard , now aged about 10 years old, disappeared in the
Tower of London in 1483 along with his older brother Edward V.

Yes it's well-known that we have examples of children being married
at ages from 2 up, possibly even younger than two. However the
question before us is, at what age could a child give *its own*
legal consent to such a marriage?

It has been stated that that age was seven. I dispute that
statement.

Blackstone's Commentaries has the ages as 12 for girls and 14 for
boys, a situation that was still unchanged as late as the 1920s. I
don't know for a fact that this also represented the law during the
middle ages, but it seems probable; marriage was almost entirely
unregulated by statute prior to the mid-eighteenth century (shortly
before when Blackstone was writing).

A footnote in Halsbury's 1st edition agrees with remarks made by
Blackstone:
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only
voidable by either party on the person under age reaching the age of
consent".

Neither work cites either a statutory authority or a judgment for the
ages, which implies that they were a matter of long-established common
law in England.

Common Law would have taken over from Canon Law after the Reformation.

The rule on this point was identical in the two systems. Common law
simply adopted the canon law rule laid down by the jurist Gratian and
Pope Gregory IX in the twelfth century, and reaffirmed by Innocent III
in the thirteenth. See Stone "The Road to Divorce", which is by way of
being the definitive work on all aspects of the history of the law of
marriage and divorce in England.

The common law, it should be noted, did not adopt all of the canon law
rules; in particular, the rule that a valid marriage was created by
the consent of the parties ("contract marriage") even without a formal
ceremony, was never accepted, and, in general, such a marriage, while
undoubtedly valid in ecclesiastical law, had no effect on property
rights; the wife had no claim to dower, and the children could not
inherit as legitimate heirs. There are exceptions, though; Stone
quotes one from Yorkshire in 1286 where inheritance was successfully
claimed "according to local custom".

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is an interesting and valid example of the importance attached to
betrothal precontracts in medieval times. The context in which Richard
III and his supporters used it was somewhat unscrupulous. He needed
some legal justification to support his claim to the throne so he had
his nephew , already reigning as Edward V, declared illegitimate based
on his deceased father's precontract many years earlier to marry
someone other than Edward V's mother. Nothing appears to have been
said about it during Edward IV's lifetime. It evidently had legal
validity but was used in an unscrupulous way. During the Wars of the
Roses it was a fairly common practice to bring up legal issues
regarding the succession from generations past to validate or
invalidate the claims of individual contenders. I suppose it's one of
the reasons why statute of limitation laws exist today.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»