There were court cases about coerced marriage and what qualifies as coercion. Fear for your physical safety always did.

Most daughters still did what Daddy wanted when it came to marriage, especially if the family was wealthy and/or titled.

That's kinda the trick ain't it?

@@jenniferbrewer5370 That was how you moved up in society back then. It's not to say that medieval women were shrinking violets on the whole. Many women were part of trade guilds, and additionally managed the husband's business while he was away. I would have to go look because it's been about 20 years since I was actually deep into trade guild records, but many women were leather workers, textile merchants, ran pubs, and all manner of entrepreneurial ventures, separate and apart from their husbands. Arranged marriages were largely the province of people of wealth seeking to increase it through marriage. Poor and middling people mostly married for love, while elites married largely for convenience, just as they do now.

Coerced consent

They were more late middle ages or early renaissance rather then high

You mean the Fernando and Isabel who, in 1478 instituted the notorious inquisition that saw thousands of Jews being burnt alive , murdered, forced to convert or striped of their homes, their Holy books burnt and evicted from their country to wander aimlessly for fear of death? You mean those two? Yeah - real role model.

@@orafrid3505 There were a great role model. If not for Isabel, native Americans might still rule America. But Fernindad had many mistresses. I don't think they are the ideal middle age couple. Charles II, their grandchild, on the other hand, was always faithful to his wife, Empress Isabella. He had lovers but before and after being married to her, never while she was his wife and was alive.

@@orafrid3505 What's the problem?

@@orafrid3505+ We meant more about their relationship, but...

@BulgaroSlav Not anymore?

Although what you say is true. Western countries no longer push for the normal family unit to stay in tact. Which is the very reason we are seeing whole societies break down into incivility. It's only a matter of time before we implode.

You seem to neglect addressing the fact that non monogamous men are by default involved sexually with other women, most of consensually of course. Not normally due to a power imbalance. The woman-girl, is a sexual being too and wants it for a variety of reasons.

stephen turner you think too little.

@@Deborahtunes Define "Normal"... Because "Normal" for Christian men in biblical times was, a man, his wife, his concubines, his mistreses and a whole bunch of children OUTSIDE of the marriage..

Andrew Clements Very Kool 👌Christianity has brought more good than bad to the World, contrary to popular belief that is....As we heard it gave women the right to consensual marriage...also people like MLK JR we’re inspired by Jesus and Jesus’s principles are what lived through them and others...even Gandhi spoke on the truth of Jesus.

The problem with this is that most “women” were married quite young and were raised/socialized to accept the suitor chosen by their families. Refusing consent is a lot tougher if you fear displeasing your family.

StetzMusic 8

@@amasion2882 Only for aristocrats. Most common women married around 16-18, having sex at 18-20. It was pretty scandalous for an older dude to marry a young girl.

blacktigerpaw1 : It doesn’t matter. A 16-18 year old girl/woman would usually be dependent emotionally and financially upon her parents or guardians. Religious teachings and social norms of the era required women to be submissive and obedient to parents, elders, clergy and to men in general. Most women probably didn’t choose their own men unless their parents approved their choices.

There are plenty of people I like but that I wouldn't want to have sex with.

@@marilon Agreed.

Thanks so much for your comment. I'm glad you enjoy the channel. We definitely share a taste in historical eras! Take care, and thanks again!

thanks!

Yes the Catholic Church improved the lives of women and society vastly in the middle ages

Mm, I disagree. The Catholic Church burned women at the stake for practicing medicine and bringing competition to make physicians. Not to mention the common rules that demanded women be subservient without expecting the same from men. There are so many dicotomies with how the church treated women; just think about the punishments of adultery for men vs women. I also don't think the "consent of the woman" or "power of the woman" was as we see it. "Consent" could have been forced, since women could be abused with no repercussions. The church deemed this the men's spiritual right. Also, what kind "power" is this man referring to? There are still modern Christians who think a woman's "power" is being quiet and completely obedient to her husband, the ability to surrender her liberty and personal will. This is the problem with men presenting the history of marriage: they cling to optimistic perspectives about how women were treated without acknowledging the reality, to make their gender look better historically. Marriage has been systematic abuse and legal slave-level ownership of half the population, all perpetuated by the Christian Church in Western society.

@@KMarieNieto Wrong. The Church has always demanded fidelity and order within marriage from both husband and wife. While women were seen as objects or even less by the pagans in Greece and Rome, they were recognized as children of God by Christianity. Respect was expected, and abuse became intolerable. Now, to say a woman is not allowed to be unfaithful to her husband, in any way, is not to take away her freedom (the same applies to the husband). It is to preserve the sacred institution of marriage, which is oriented primarily to the children, but also to the well-being of both spouses. Fidelity is essential.

@@KMarieNieto Also, do you have any evidence for the claim that "the Church burned women at the stake for practicing medicine"?

I think instincts are what generally cause people to be driven towards those things, hence why people find certain behaviors attractive, because they lead to survival (this can be made manifest culturally as well, that's why different cultures find different things to be attractive).

Romantic love is just a chemical reaction in your brain driving the propagation of your genes. And thus, nothing has changed. I do take issue with you labeling it a brutal time, as nothing could be more brutal than pushing a button and killing hundreds of thousands, and that’s a recent development.

It depends heavily on the time period. In the time the Bible was written, Christian women were seen as, and treated as, objects. Though later Christianity moved on from this.

It's not really possible to talk about a religion that has existed for about 2000 years, has a great number of different branches, and is the most popular in the world today as having one singular, clearly defined attitude towards women. Within modern day Christianity you can find examples ranging from extreme misogyny to churches having quite a feminist approach. When you include the different forms of Christianity of earlier time periods the picture becomes even more complex.

ofcourse not, a lot of money goes to the church with legal marriages it's all about money

@Elizabeth Sobel Apparently you never read the Bible.

@@mandypandy111ify Not so.....

I wish they did. On the facade sure, but in reality they don’t. Women too have changed, though some of us are still traditional and would like a man with similar values. One man, one woman, a team, best friends, love, loyalty, respect. But near impossible to find these days. Few understand what love is and means now.

@erni muja Too much dishonest romanticism. It is what the rich want you to believe. Long ago, and even not so long ago, common men may desert wife/family, die of illness or war, or simply drink or gamble the money/family goods away, and the woman/family would lose all, since women were not generally accepted / allowed to work and a woman with children had a hard time re-marrying, unless from a rich family. Similarly, a woman had no real power, so could be beaten, maimed, walled up in a room to die of thirst and there was little recourse, depending on 50 to 200 years ago, or the location. So no, it is still much better today. Today, the real problem is the rich/poor wage difference. Used to be, the owner made on average 30 times the typical worker's wage - Now, the CEO more often is paid 300 to 3000 times an average worker's salary. Therefore, fewer workers who are expected to do more work. Simple math - that greed is the cause of the increase in poverty and erosion of the middle class.

@@Nexus-ub4hs yeah I think that's true. I have more traditional values and I can hardly even find friends these days cos those values are so despised. Thankfully I met my husband before all this stuff went totally off the rails. I couldn't imagine trying to find a good partner these days, it's be so hard.

@erni muja women always worked. The chief economic unit was the home. Cottage industry required spinners weavers farming and cooks medicnal agents (until the inqiustion culled them out) market sales (ever heard of a fishwife? Or a seamstress? ) A wet nurse held status. A cook ,maid, laundress , shepardress or cattle keeper was typical.Innkeepers, and nursing homes were usually female ran affairs if not owned by them in Europe. Great Homes were ran by capable educated aristocratic females who kept estates much like a corporate CEO would today. Wages are stagnate because corporate white male CEOs take home multiples of times the pay of whole groups of workers, and near slave markets exist overseas. Nixon opened trade in China and all our manufacturing went there or somewhere worse.

erni muja , boy, you don’t know much history or have ever considered how people got food and textiles before the Industrial Revolution. Women didn’t get handled money to go shopping.

*woman

What did the women get in return? You don't even mention their names. Being a great woman in our own right is always better than being a nameless supportive wife.

@@KMarieNieto exactly. I would like a supportive husband

@@KMarieNieto Mary Todd Lincoln and Julia Dent Grant were great women in their own right; not despite their husbands' success. You can read much about both of them. That's why they are referred to as the First Lady, not Second Person.

@@KMarieNieto Well to someone who clearly places value strictly on notoriety, they didn’t gain much.

No. Queen Victoria chose her husband from multiple possibilities.

Arranged marriage persists to this day in some cultures.

Divorce is accepted in some circumstances by our Lord GOD, adultery, One partner not believing or not worshiping GOD there are a few more but not many, It also is not a mortal sin.

thank you for commenting directly from the middle ages

Sin is sin, there are no levels, sorry. No sin can enter heaven.

Why does an intellectual discussion turns into religious fairytale bullshit?

@@angelajakob1257 Pure baffoonary if you ask me. Sadly most people do not really base their views on evidence and hold on to the nonsensical bs they were raised on and cherish.

it became a problem for the church later. people would claim they pledged themselves to each other but them separate.

@@ah5721 And it was precisely for practical reasons that the church wanted a witness to the marriage!

I suspect that the Templar were like the rest of us. Some good and some bad. Also, it might depend on where you are positioned with regard to the Templar as a whole, or even an individual. For example, I'm fairly convinced that if you were a person who owed a great deal of money to them, you might support their enemies for the purpose of escaping your poor budgeting and financial responsibility. Or, if you were one of Salahadin's footmen, and met a Templar, fully armored and mounted, on the battlefield, you would certainly consider these folk to be "bad". While, a period European architect, might find the influence of the Templar to convince them they were good. He could we'll have found himself gainfully employed working on any of the hundreds of Gothic cathedrals built following their return to France.

Hundreds of cathedrals? I'm not sure about that. But, I'll amend it to at least dozens.

@Princess 123 Templars have nothing to do with freemasonry outside of unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories.

@Princess 123 Freemasonry is really good stuff if you know anything about it. Freemasons are accepting of all who accept God in any form and are involved in many charitable causes. Whereas to this day the Catholic Church is still protecting child molester.

The Orders' members where monks so I suppose widowers could join them -since back then it was common for widowers and widows becaming monks and nuns respectively. Yet I am not sure if they would meet the warrior standards the Orders needed as easily in all cases if they were of older age.

Non-Agglutinative Krenak I was under the impression that if a man and a woman consummated the relationship they were considered married under the law at that time.

Officiants were not required for marriage. You needed only the words and then sex to follow it up.

Codie 2000 He was adulterous ? 😮☹️

Yamnayan Descent yes,he had several bastard children yet Isabella made sure they were properly educated.

Codie 2000 That sucks 😐

Codie 2000 The main duty of a nobleman's wife was to provide heirs. It was not uncommon for a nobleman to acquire a mistress when the noble wife and her husband had decided that they had enough children. Or, when the wife could no longer (for whatever reason) bear children. That said, most noblewomen had several children, over a period of many years.

@Emil Vasilev ;)

That's because the early Christian church wouldn't accept divorce. It wasn't until King Henry the 8th created his own religion just so he could divorce his 1st 2nd and 3rd wife and even then it was only possible by the husband. Honestly I'm glad divorce is legal and aloud by both partners.

@@yinfox07 Actually, I was referring to today's modern world. Cultures with pre-arranged marriage have a much lower divorce rate if the documentaries I've seen are correct. It's not exactly the trend you'd expect.

@@CalvinGibson195 that maybe but you have to take into account of the culture that practice it, the families and how they go about the arrangement. Many cultures that have arranged marriage heavily frown on divorce unless a valid reason is given and that varies. And again it goes back to what I stated earlier. In some countries it illegal to get a divorce, or only man can initiate it. Again I'm glad that divorce is a option.

A marriage can be both arranged and consensual. There are still plenty of parts of the world today where young people go to their parents to ask for a match to be found, and are able to freely accept or reject any potential matches. In other families, arranged marriages are forced/coerced, but that doesn't mean the two always go together.

Marriage is complicated and when that choice is not based on logic but emotion makes it more likely to fluctuate and depending on the situation could lead to divorce

Actually, I studied this in history of the family, it comes from the Romans, whose only real requirement for marriage was the consent of the bride and groom (whether it was enthusiastic or informed consent I couldn't tell you ans the consent of the family was paramount behind the scenes). Since the Catholic church took root in Rome and made it its HQ, it used a lot of its culture to form itself, like the language and certain laws and customs. That's why the church struggled later to enforce a religious ceremony, the permission of the parents or that consummation made the mariage official or required in a mariage (social norms enforced the last one), because they made and maintained the Roman tradition of consent as the only requirement.

@@vivideblois interesting knowledge. The perspective I often come across (and had myself) was that the womens consent was more of a convenience than a requirement

@@stianberg5645 I know, it was quite a shock, but my professor did also warn us not to idealise it either, consent didn't mean enthusiastic consent. I'm sure that peer pressuring into accepting an unlikable spouse had to have happened. Nevertheless it just goes to show how society has twisted how we view history and people from other cultures that them having consent as a requirement from both parties in a mariage comes as a shock.

No, the requirement for a priest was a later development.

They had to be unmarried at the time of joining.

Real Crusades History I’ve been reading the book The Templars The rise and spectacular fall of God’s holy warrios by Dan Jones and he said that married couple where allowed to join the order

On rare occasions.

Typically the Templars were taking roughly the same oaths as monks so it must have been the same process as becoming a regular monk.

When a marriage partner joined a monastery or convent, the marriage was annulled. Any children born before the annulment, were considered legitimate and retained their inheritance rights. Had Catherine of Aragon entered a convent, Mary would have retained her rights of succession. The Pope actually wanted this solution, but Catherine of Aragon refused. Dispensations because of consanguinity were fairly easy to obtain because most notables married within a small circle.

Anton Babani why not I'm Spanish and I have middle East and North Africa dna

Gog Mog kind of through raping of Spanish women but most moors were expelled by Ferdinand and Isabella.

Codie 2000 oh, now I get it

ooh TRIGGERING !

Probably the opposite, remember the New continent?

In pre-Christian antiquity there were literal sex slaves. A master in ancient Greece or Rome could have sex with his slave at any time and said slave had no right to refuse him.

Diana said in an interview that Charles called Camilla from the royal yacht Britannia on which they took their honeymoon.

No, he just wanted the heir and the spare and she had the blood and connections

JV: As soon as she accepted his proposal that Actually Mentioned That One Day She'd Be Queen, instead of enjoying a romantic moment, he immediately called his mother to announce that their problem had been "fixed". Prior to being introduced to her by his grandmother, Charles endured endless ridicule from family along the lines of: Oh COME on now, Charles ! Just how hard can it BE to find a Protestant virgin?

Nope, he was always in love with Camilla and Diana was forced on him and a breeding mare. Cold reality

@@lotstolearn5350 that's so sad.

Gratian (not to be confused with the Roman emperor Flavius Gratian) was a Medieval monk and professor. The source J. Stephen Roberts is possibly referencing is a work by Gratian often called the “Decretum Gratiani,” a treatise/collection of canon laws which became part of the larger Corpus Juris Canonici.

Declaring intent to marry was sufficient. In Scotland, handfasting existed that allowed couple to nutually dissolve the union after a year and a day. Children born during the handfast period were legitimate.

Anonymous Libertarian Not all of the states in the USA recognize Common Law marriage. My state does not.

Govt approval doesn't prevent that. Govt approval in modern society as in the U.S. is vestige of racists to prevent interracial marriage.

@@mudkipx9052 ...or a pastor... (I'm not Catholic) 😇

@@mudkipx9052 True. 😊

What??? No. No, no, no. People knew which marriages were legal and which weren’t. We need to return to a sane definition of marriage and force the officiant out again.

Consanguinity laws applied to all marriages regardless of rank.

Real Crusades History how did it work for the Hapsbergs

That's modern history. I'm talking about the Middle Ages.

You could sometimes get a dispensation but it applied to all ranks even after the Middle Ages.

I don't think so.....

Anaris10 you keep saying this. It is not true. I have not deleted any of your comments. Not a single one.

Redman speaks with forked tongue.

I had a comment on your "5 things wrong" vid. I alluded to how movies like "Gladiator" showed how nasty Roman arty could be in the old days and then the "Romans" just devolved into a sword swinging mob. I mentioned that the Romans were SOLDIERS and their enemies were mostly WARRIORS, There being a big difference. I asked how many movies show the Romans in their "Checkerboard" formations. 2 other people replied and I came back to see if anyone had added anything and the whole conversation was gone. Well thanks for answering anyway.

Anaris10 ....tears in your tea :(

Troy What's that supposed to mean?.What does this have to do with you?.