Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Incest and the Medieval Man

When I first started writing Enthralled (the third book in the Druids of Duncarnoch series) I knew the hero and heroine had grown up together and had known since they were children that they were soul mates.

But as children of a noble household, their desires or happiness are irrelevant. Marriage was a political and financial arrangement, especially for the nobility. The goal of marriage was to gain richer lands and more powerful alliances for the next generation—the nobleman’s grandchildren.

In the story, Amilia has been betrothed since she was a toddler, and William tasked with doing whatever necessary to win the patronage of a powerful lord (or lady) in the hopes of gaining power and wealth through marriage to an heiress.

If that's not conflict enough, they were raised as brother and sister, compounding the obstacles they face.

They are not related by blood, and they know it, but our medieval counterparts would have argued consanguinity all the same.

And that brings us to incest and the medieval man.

Although consanguinity literally means “blood relations,” its legal definition was much broader.

The Church prohibited marriage between people who were related within four degrees of consanguinity, which included blood relatives, relatives by marriage (if the man and wife became “one flesh” then all relatives on either side are related) and those related by spiritual affinity (related through relationships of godparents).

You can imagine how very quickly your medieval options dwindled. And that shallow pool became even more shallow when the Church raised the number of prohibited degrees to seven in the 9th century. Within a few hundred years, the nobility became (technically speaking) too interrelated to marry.

For the lesser folks, many of whom never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born, the pool was more like a puddle.


I've always find this side of medieval marriage fascinating, and a bit odd. The reasoning behind the prohibitions is vague, particularly when it comes to spiritual affinity, and gaining Papal dispensation to go ahead and marry your thrice-connected cousin was relatively easy.

Not surprisingly, the Church loosened the prohibitions in the 13th century, and current canon law deals only with biological kinship. 

In your research or reading, what is the oddest or most puzzling rule that you've come across?


Keena Kincaid writes historical romances in which passion, magic and treachery collide to create unforgettable stories. You can find out more about her books at: http://prairierosepublications.com. Leave a comment for a chance to win one of her books, ANAM CARA, TIES THAT BIND and ENTHRALLED.


33 comments:

  1. "Fascinating," as Spock would say! I had no idea. This is really interesting, Keena. Yes, it would be really hard to find someone to marry under these laws! Especially, as you say, with the lack of travel.

    I have loved every book in your series, and we are looking forward to ART OF LOVE coming soon! Can't wait!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The really interesting part of this is the likelihood that no one paid much attention to the rule unless they wanted an annulment. But it's impossible to know what actually happened in relation to the rules

      Delete
  2. Keena,

    There are certainly some strange laws out there. It's interesting to look into the history behind these laws to see how these nonsensical law managed to 'survive'. Here's a law that had, and still has, far-reaching ramifications.

    Comstock Act of 1873: Basically, it was a federal law meant to suppress trade in and circulation of obscene literature and articles of immoral use. The law prohibited the possession/distribution of obscene materials considered by *someone* to be obscene, lewd, or lascivious. This loosely covered pornography, contraceptive equipment, and such educational materials as descriptions of contraceptive methods and other reproductive health-related materials. It was out-of-control enough that there was a time when anatomy textbooks couldn't be sent to medical students via postal service.

    The first successful challenge of this law was by Margaret Sanger in 1916.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't know that, Kaye, but not surprised. For some reason "the man" really dislikes women knowing about contraceptives.

      Delete
  3. I don't know about odd rule, aside from the well known rule of thumb (I guess that came after marriage?) but the oddest relationship I have come across in medieval times is in the court of King Henry VIII. His 5th wife, Catherine Howard, took a lover, Thimas Culpeper, who was not only His Majesty's groom, but was her maternal cousin through her mother, Joyce Culpeper. So many ick factors there. Then, she lost her head!

    I can't wait to check out some of your work - which do I start with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, ha. I read it as Thomas anyway. I didn't realize that he was her maternal cousin, though. There is a great book called Disease in History that theorizes King H8 was infected with syphilis when he was about 20 years old, which is why none of his wives managed a second child that lived and why he was likely bat-shit crazy by the time he was on Wives 5 and 6. So much drama because of his infection. Although we got Queen E1 out of it, so we should thank him and the dead for their sacrifices.

      Start with Anam Cara.

      Delete
    2. He also suffered badly from a jousting wound that never healed properly and he was in pain the rest of his life.

      Delete
  4. Interesting Keena. My mind draws a blank at the moment on a weird rule I've found LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before you come across one, Kristy. There seem to be a lot of them scattered about history.

      Delete
    2. There are some odd laws that have never been taken off the books. For instance: "Chickens are not allowed to cross the road (Quitman, Georgia)" You have to wonder what possessed anyone to pass the law in the first place.
      http://justsomething.co/the-22-most-ridiculous-us-laws-still-in-effect-today-2/

      Delete
  5. Great post, Keena! The weirdest rules IMO are any written by men that prohibit birth control. Laws both secular and church. I did know about Henry 8 and the syphilis factor. Good stuff today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Tanya. Yeah, why are men so obsessed with our reproductive system?

      Delete
    2. Because no matter how many rules/laws they apply to it, it is something they can't do. Sure they can plant the seed. It's like the old saying; the rooster may crow, but the hen delivers the goods.

      Delete
  6. Actually, some of those were still in effect in the 14th century. Among the many barriers to the wedding of the Black Prince to the Fair Maid of Kent was that he had served as godfather to her children!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember that now. But can you imagine not being able to marry anyone within 7 degrees of spiritual affinity of the Black Prince? So his godparents, their godchildren and godparents, their godchildren and godparents... what were they thinking?

      Delete
    2. To clarify, in 1215 the Church dropped the degrees of consanguinity from seven back to four. It also simplified how those degrees were counted, so while your paternal first cousin was off limits, his maternal first cousin might not be. You really have to delve into the details and almost draw it out as you do it to really get who is off limits and who isn't.

      Delete
  7. I guess sisters were not allowed to marry their brother-in-laws back then. Wow, those are some very interesting facts about marriage and what was once considered incest. I wish I had an interesting factoid to tell, but I don't. Bummer.
    I want to wish you great success with your book, Enthralled, Keena.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Sarah. If the sisters married the brothers at the same time then I suppose that would be one way around it. What I find interesting is how convenient consanguinity became when the couple decided to go their separate ways.

      Delete
  8. Very interesting. I've not found the marriage factors in much research, but the power of the church and its importance to the lives of people during that time is endlessly fascinating. Now, I've got some more research on Germany and Spain to delve through. Who knows what I'll find, but find it I will. Thanks for the information. Doris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much of how marriage was actually conducted is unknown. We have some idea on attitude based on wills, rites to legitimize children born before their parents married and court cases, but we don't know what the actual ceremonies were like until the church made them a sacrament.

      Delete
  9. Eww, well, I don't know what to say. But somehow you've used this weird relationship thing to write what sounds like an intriguing story. Congrats Keena! You are one talented lady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I use it as a springboard...trust me, when it comes to canon law, a little goes a long way.

      Delete
  10. The more I learn about mankind's history, the more I'm amazed that we as a species didn't die out long ago. I find it interesting the church made rules it evidently ignored at convenience.

    Thanks for this eye-opener, Keena!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, Kathleen, the comments I could make about institutions that make rules they ignore at their convenience. Ha, ha. History is filled with those types.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just going through my own maternal family history, by the 18th century widows/widowers married in-laws. One of the biggest reasons being travel; most lived on farms and one way they met others was through a marriage in the family. This was common to the mid-1900's, which probably explains a lot about me ;) Makes me glad great-grandpa had itchy feet and found a new bride from a few states over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marrying in-laws is probably better than marrying cousins, genetically speaking. :-) But yes, when your world is small, finding a partner who isn't somehow already connected to you is hard.

      Delete
  13. Very interesting. But in some cultures didn't the wife have to marry the husband's brother if the husband died and there was a brother available? Or is this just something Hollywood made up in old time movies???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are thinking Bible times. It was how a deceased brother's wife and nieces and nephews were taken care of, plus for inheritance considerations, any children born were "raised up" as the deceased brother's heirs.

      Delete
    2. Often the young girl (sometimes more infant than girl) went to live with her in-laws so there would be no question of where her loyalties would be once she and the heir were wed. In those cases, if one brother died, she would wed the next in line. So when Arthur, Prince of Wales, died no one batted an eye that the future Henry VIII married her.

      Delete
  14. Thank you ladies. I do remember it was used in biblical times. So happy it isn't still in effect.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Congrats, Barbara Betts. You won the drawing for a free book. Contact me at keenakincaidauthor@gmail.com and I'll get one to you.

    Keena

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe the one that a man may not marry his brother's widow puzzling.

    ReplyDelete