this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
616 points (98.0% liked)
Greentext
4612 readers
1055 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah but I think "marriage" like that was a lot different from what we consider it to be now. More of a way to link families, not love matches or even "teams" on their own. Like it wasn't for them, they were resources parents traded around in marriages and also fosterings, right?
yes mostly it was just a nobility thing. common people didn't do it i think.
monarchs and earls and such would "marry" their children to children of other monarchs, to establish peace contracts through becoming related by blood. These kids were expected to carry (some) children, but AFAIK it was extremely common for them to have affairs with other people as well, so it was more a formal thing and less a "true love" affair.
as for common people, though, marriage at 12 was common as well, just that they could more often choose so themselves. so, in some sense, i guess they were the "happier" people :)
Edit: ok so i just looked it up. The minimum age of marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys throughout large parts of medieval Europe. However, that didn't mean they married that young. Rather, they married when they could afford it as sustaining a family required resources. So, the better economically the family was doing, the sooner the kids could (and often would) marry.