The history of marriage (from a comment on another blog)

[fpb]

The drift away from normative lifelong monogamous marriage seems to be as old as the human race. That seems to me to be what Our Lord meant when He said: "Moses told you so [allowing divorce] because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so." Jesus had asked "What did Moses teach you [about marriage]?" And he had been

Comments

[filialucis]

"... if the Lutheran Philip of Hesse had successfully managed what he had plotted in secret together with Luther and seven of Luther's chief followers, Europe might have been saddled not only with divorce but with polygamy. But that proved a bridge too far, even for them."

:O

Details, please? Or informative links if you don't have the time to write about it yourself?

[fpb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_I,_Landgrave_of_Hesse#Bigamous_Marriage

[filialucis]

Seriously.

I suppose that explains a thing or two about that Familienpapier the Lutheran church recently published in Germany.

[ravenclaw_eric]

I'd have to take exception to your characterization of Anne Boleyn. I understand perfectly well why you don't like her, but someone who sleeps (as far as is known for sure) with one man in her life cannot be called a slut. (Or does the word mean something different in Britain? I'm far more familiar with contemporary British idioms than many Americans, but have been known to trip sometimes.) As for "homewrecker"---what was she to do when the King kept coming after her? In her boots, I'd have likely wanted to split---but I don't think Henry would have let her go, and neither would that ambitious family of hers. I'd say she held out for marriage because she didn't want to end up like her sister, who'd been Henry's mistress. And, like it or not, the dynastic situation was such that Henry was going to be looking for a new wife; the Tudor dynasty was new, not all that royal compared with a lot of their subjects, and there weren't very many Tudors around to take the throne if Henry died--which would likely lead straight back to civil

[fpb]

Well, you neglect the small matter of Catherine of Aragon being the aunt of a bloke called Charles of Habsburg, who was not only Holy Roman Emperor, king of Aragon, Castile, the Two Sicilies, Bohemia and Hungary, lord of Mexico and Peru, archduke of Austria and duke of Burgundy, but who as Duke of Burgundy held most of present-day Belgium and the Netherlands and had enough ships and soldiers to turn England over like an old glove if he saw need. I will not even mention the enormous debt that the monster owed this accomplished and devoted woman - to quote Wikipedia, "For six months, she served as regent of England while Henry VIII was in France. During that time the English won the Battle of Flodden, an event in which Catherine played an important part." - since we know from the lives of Cardinal Wolsey, St,Thomas More, and even of the odious Thomas Cromwell, that the greater the debt of gratitude owed by Henry to any man, the more certain that he would ruin and if possible murder them; and besides, it is quite possible, given the man'

[ravenclaw_eric]

All right. You tell me what she was supposed to do with the King of England setting his cap for her? Particularly since Henry VIII was quite a bit more of an absolute monarch than the Yorkists or other prior dynasties had ever been

Errr..

[joetexx]

Wasn't Louis XV the grandfather, not the father, of XVI?

Pompadour died at 43; seems young to us, but was well into middle age for her time.

[ext_933203]

I disagree with your analysis of where gay marriage comes from. I think it's more to do with the fact that the popular view of marriage - for the past 40 years, or thereabouts - is that it's an institution that exists primarily for the romantic fulfillment of a couple - in this view, children are more or less optional, and if the romance dies a divorce should be quickly obtained without any fuss. If you talk to older men and women they would see marriage and children as absolutely inseparable, whereas now the cultural view of the institution has changed dramatically. And once you see it in this new way you won't have many good arguments against gay marriage.
Also, on a completely unrelated subject, I'm doing my dissertation on the English Reformation this year - specifically the reign of Edward VI. Would you happen to know of any good resources on the topic (or just the English Reformation in general?)?

[fpb]

As for the English reformation, start, but don't end, with Cobbett. He is factious, irascible, and very keen on his mistakes (for instance his absurd belief that England was more populous in the Middle Ages than in his day), but you have to understand him: having once found out that all the leading histories of Protestant England to his day were full of atrocious and deliberate lies - and he will tell you where and how - he was never going to trust the same official sources again over anything. He was himself a man of obstinate integrity who would not consider telling a lie to save his life, and so the discovery of the propaganda lies of his predecessors was, to him, a totally defining moment. So he threw out a number of babies along with the bath water. But the bath water he threw out needed throwing out, and I say that no historian who does not deal with the issues raised by Cobbett is worth listening to. Still, when you find him describing Anne Boleyn dressed all in yellow and plainly exulting while the rest of the court was in

[ext_933203]

Cheers for the response. Just so you know, I think the title's going to be something like "Popular reaction to the religious reforms of Edward VI." So it's when England and Wales became properly Protestantised - say what you like about Henry, but he never really saw himself as anything other than Catholic. What I found interesting is that it looks like current scholarship on the subject seems to accept a vibrant pre-Reformation Catholicism, but also insists that these beliefs were given up quietly - if reluctantly - by the English and Welsh people as a whole when the state begins to implement the new program. I want to really examine that, see what the common man thought about it all.

[fpb]

I see. There isn't much I can say directly to help you, since all I have done is read the result of the research of others. You need to read original sources and a lot of them. A good source, I gather, could be the records of episcopal trials, where you can find evidence of the behaviour of ordinary people at their worst. Private papers and correspondence might also help, including anything in Welsh - a lot of Welsh gentlemen and educated persons used the language in preference to English. And when you read things, you have to map them as part of a background. In reading the records of church trials, for instance, it might be a good idea to see how many at any given time are about heresy and recusancy as part of the total. You might find that the Anglican bishop had his hands full hunting Catholics up hill and down dale, or, conversely, that they barely registered against a vast background of adultery, blasphemy and other sins, It would also be useful to familiarize yourself with the population and economics of the districts you study