medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
> Do we have a clue why someone who eschewed conjugal delights wed not once
> but twice?
> "E. married at a young age, but convinced her husband that
> >virginity was much nicer than wedded bliss. He died three years later.
E.
> >then lived a secluded life on the island of Ely for five years before
> >marrying a Northumbrian boy-prince."
Would she have had any choice in the matter ? I always thought that at
that date the parties consenting to a marriage were the (future) husband and
the father (or other male kinsman) of the bride. (The woman's consent was
not required until the 12th century ???? and then only to say "no, I want to
be a nun" not to say "no, I want to marry someone else."). Both these
marriages were clearly political, to cement alliances or treaties. E may
have sympathised with her father's political intentions while having major
reservations about her personal involvement.
I have always understood that non-consummation does not make a marriage VOID
(that is, a no no right from the start) but only VOIDABLE (that is, it can
be annulled if either or both parties desire it)
Can any expert on canon law correct me if I'm wrong ?
BMC
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|