Man of Honour
[..]
As for Norman marriages, my understanding is that Angilion's summation is simplistic: the assets may have resided with the marriage, but the marriage was effectively owned by the husband.
Yes, it was simplistic. Partly because I was cutting it down for a forum post and partly because I was talking about the law as it was written. You're talking about the law as it was often implemented in the middle ages, which is less relevant to more modern implementation of law based on written medieval law. Your statement is also simplistic - implementation of the law varied considerably as there was a lot more scope for individual judges (and other people with the power to implement law) to make their own decisions. It was almost always true that the husband was treated as the senior partner in the marriage, but not almost always true that he was treated as owning the marriage. For example, he couldn't sell marital assets that had belonged to her. Also, the husband was usually treated as being very strongly responsible for his wife, which included financial support for life. That responsibility even extended as far as criminal responsibility, i.e. a husband could be punished if his wife broke the law.
The reality of gendered roles and sexism in general in the past was a lot more complex than can be accurately summed up in a couple of sentences on a forum.
I think that applied to annulment, not to divorce.Divorce was only possible for those who could successfully petition the Pope
Not always. There are records of property being assigned to the widow regardless and in practice property owned by the woman prior to marriage was usually treated differently. Strictly speaking, it should have reverted to her. There was also a legal requirement for support of a wife to be arranged if her husband died first - a dower. Which usually meant property in wealthier marriages., and in each case the division of lands etc was likely to be ad hoc. In the event of death of the husband, property remained with the wife only if there was no son old enough to run the household. Once old enough, he then took control.
There was plenty of sexism and women could get screwed over by rulings, but it wasn't always the case.
But some of it dealt with freedoms. One of the freedoms explicitly stated in it was the freedom of women to not marry. So it was illegal for anyone, including the king, to force any woman into marriage in order to put her lands (or property, or whatever) into a favoured family.In England at least, the King could and did seize control of assets of widows, or force them into marriages to put the lands into a family who were friends of the monarch. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of Magna Carta dealt with issues of inheritance, not freedoms.
Here's a translation of the two most relevant sections:
Rights of Widows and Orphans
22 At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.
23 No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.
Last edited: