The role of political marriages in the Middle Ages

[Derfasciti]

I've been encountering some questions about how exactly the idea of marriage between royalty in the Middle Ages worked. What were the theoretical benefits of marriages i.e. the daughter of the King of France to the son of the King of England? I suppose the idea that one of "your own" would help influence the other to see your views. But was there something more? How did succession work (to the throne or to the daughter's lands) For instance, would the son of the King of England inherit some french lands or what?

I understand my questions may be a bit odd or confusing but for some reason I'm having trouble grasping the true meaning(s) behind the marriages for reasons of state. Could some of you be so kind as to enlighten me please?

[GodWillsIt]

It is my uderstanding that the Son-In-Law was garunteed important holdings in enemy territory with the promise that if all male heirs died that he and the daughter, or the daughter herself would be the major infulence in the country (King/Queen). Let us begin the discussion???

[Brenus]

Marriage was a system to finalise Treaties and alliances. What benefit for the English King to marry the French Princess. It would have allowed him to rule France on her behalf (sur son chef, on her head), then if they’ve got a child, this child could be the next King of France and England. That was the theory in this case, except the existence of a Dauphin (Charles) and this process failed one century before with Edward III (who was the direct grand-son of one of the most powerful King of France, Phillip Le Bel by his mother Isabelle de France, la Louve de France).
You have to understand that power in middle Ages came from the land. The Tittles, honour and even function come from the lands. No only the finances but everything. If you are the owner of let’s say Lorraine, you are a Duke. That can be achieved by conquest, very hard, or marriage. If you marry a widow, you will get the benefit of the lands and your son will get the title if others contestants from before vanished, die in hunting accidents or become monks…
In France you had 12 Duchés-Pairies. To possess one of these territories gave you de juro a place in the inner Council of the French King. A “Duc et Pair” position was a powerful tool. So, if one died, the widow couldn’t remarry without the King’s approval: because her husband would administrate all on her behalf.
(Read the book about Willian The Marechal, le last of the Knight, and his social ascension, by George Duby, if it was translated in English. Excellent book it will give you a good image of what the middle ages were.)

And this was not only for the nobility, but for he all society, and you can study in the peasantry a strategy of marriage. Your grand father married his daughter with the son of on neighbours (and give a piece of land) so you will marry your daughter with the same family and regain a piece of land. You had some kind of inter-family agreement and was done during generation

[Furious Mental]

I don't know where you got that information from but in the period of English society which I've studied (later Middle Ages) peasants and labourers of both genders basically chose their own marital partner.

[ajaxfetish]

I think a large part of it is dependent on the time and place. Medieval Europe was not one uniform political and legal bloc, but more a polyglot collection of cultures, many of them experimental. For the most part, political marriages were a form of alliance (relationships in the middle ages were usually more personal than institutional, so a marriage meant a lot more than say a treaty).

As for inheritance rights, the case of Edward III, brought up by Brenus, is an interesting one. When the Capetian line of French kings died out, Edward was the closest relative in succession, but was passed over for a more distant relative. The justification was that Edward's descent from the crown was through a woman, while Philip of Valois, though not as close, was connected to the dynasty through direct male lineage. Edward was able to defend his claim through English law, and Philip was able to defend his through French law. So inheritance of a crown through marriage would depend on the country, and in some cases could lead to conflict thanks to differing interpretations.

Ajax

[Randarkmaan]

I don't know where you got that information from but in the period of English society which I've studied (later Middle Ages) peasants and labourers of both genders basically chose their own marital partner.

Partly right, but usually their parents chose for them. That happend here (in Norway) all the way up to the 1800s I think, it was common for a mother to turn down someone wanting to marry her daughter on account that he was not rich enough.

[Furious Mental]

Well it wouldn't surprise me if it differed from place to place. But after the Black Death greatly accelerated the rise in economic position of peasants and labourers, and created widespread opportunities to find work and buy land, they tended to move away from home earlier, choose their own partner, marry later and have fewer children. Essentially, being wealthier and freer than the average people of previous generations, they had a greater ability to determine their own future. Some historians have compared it to the modern nuclear family. I don't know if I go that far but in any case for the common English man and woman marriage was pretty much an individual choice. The political dimension which governed marriage in the upper levels of society simply did not exist for them.

[Randarkmaan]

Yeah, but they were probably dependent on their parents' agreement.

[Furious Mental]

Really no more so than marriages in Western society are now. In the late 14th century and 15th centuries after a few years working as an agricultural labourer or an artisan a Englishman would have enough to acquire his own plot of land and was for all intents and purposes independent of his parents. Women, who tended to leave home in their teens to work as domestic servants, became financially independent at around the same time. Parents of the average English person had zero financial leverage over their children only a few years after they reached majority, especially since landlords had to progressively reduce merchet fines and then give them up altogether to stop their tenants absconding. Parents could disapprove of their child's choice of partner, which might dissuade them, but that was it.