Marriage in 18th Century Europe Essay

Women had great social pressure on them to marry. Young girls were often married by the age of 13 or 14 . It was socially unacceptable if women were not married by the age of 25 . Marriage was mostly for economic benefits, not romantic situations. A wedding, rather than a religious ceremony, was a civil contract that set the responsibilities and duties of husband and wife . Once married, they legally became one with their husbands. Married women had no control of their earnings, inheritance, property, and also could not appear in court as a witness nor vote . Their husbands, therefore, were responsible for all aspects of their wife including discipline .

In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen introduces the major thematic concept of marriage and financial wealth. Throughout the novel, Austen depicts various relationships that exhibit the two recurring themes. Set during the regency period, the perception of marriage revolves around a universal truth. Austen claims that a single man “must be in want of a wife.” Hence, the social stature and wealth of men were of principal importance for women. Austen, however, hints that the opposite may prove more exact: a single woman, under the social limitations, is in want of a husband. Through this speculation, Austen acknowledges that the economic pressure of social acceptance serves as a foundation for a proper marriage.

Colonial American citizens faced several challenges through the time span of the 16th century to the 18th century. It was a time of great change and growth as well as being full of obstacles. The Revolutionary War, hostile Native American tribes, harsh living conditions, and disease all played factors in the struggle for survival in early America. However, there is a topic that is also significant but not discussed as often. Marriage was a confusing and exhausting situation for many individuals. One may wonder, ”What were the challenges of finding a spouse during the Colonial Era in American history?” It was difficult for young men and women to find a suitable marriage partner who would meet all their needs or standards and stay by their side till death do they part. Oftentimes, there was no choice in the matter. During this timeframe in American history, there were several barriers that affected whom one was allowed to marry. These obstacles included race, culture, social and economic status.

As it was in the past history, today’s denial of the freedom to marry is part of establishing a larger and oppressive social vision by the government that encompasses individual ideologies such as Biblical values. In 2004 Liberal senator Guy Barnett petitioned the

During the early 1800s, marriage was seen as a fortification of wealth and power through the unification of two families instead of a declaration of endearment, as reflected through the materialistic marriage customs in the Antebellum South. Generally, a man’s parents designated a future spouse for their son, based off of a woman’s familial ties and financial stature, due to the economic ramifications that the marriage had upon each party involved (O’Neil). Although financial characteristics of the bride’s family were primarily the deciding factor, men typically prefered to marry a compliant woman with “piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity” (Fontin), considering that the gender roles at the time denounced women with ambitious or assertive

Back in the eighteenth century, marriage was seen as a business contract without considering love as the main reason for any relationship. According to Ingrid H. Tague, an assistant

In a past session the legislature passed protections for members of the clergy who might be pressured into performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment. Similar protections extend to others who might encounter the same pressure. Also in

The first notorious one would be wealth. Of course, a rich family would want to marry their kin to kin of other rich families, thus increasing their overall wealth. For example, the Medici family was a well-known family in Florence, but they wanted more wealth and more power. An arranged marriage occurs between Cosimo I and the daughter of a Spanish king, Eleanora di Toledo.

The preparations taken for an Elizabethan wedding were set in stone almost, because these steps were crucial in making sure everything was ready for the couple. Before a marriage was arranged or not people had to take into account the age of consent, which was twenty-one (William Shakespeare info). However, with parental permission girls could marry at twelve and boys at fourteen, however this wasn’t extremely common (William Shakespeare info). After a couple was engaged, the next step was the betrothal. A betrothal was where a couple would join hands and the man would give his fiancé a ring to be worn on the right hand. At the wedding the ring would be switched to the left ring finger. After all this, the couple would seal their betrothal with a kiss, and then sign their wedding contract (Maggi Ros). A wedding contract was much like a marriage license that we have today. Sometimes a couple would have to “get married hastily” and would just sign

The standard upheld had been the normal marriage practice among the elite during the Renaissance. The act required that "'banns had to be published two weeks before the ceremony was to take place; second, that the marriage had to be solemnized in a parish church in the presence of a priest and two other witnesses; and third, that parental consent was necessary for persons under 21'" (Cacicedo 193). This practice ensured parental control over the couple and transfer of property.

Marriage laws in medieval England were for the most part canon laws. These codified legal principles and regulations created and enforced through ecclesiastical and hierarchical authorities of the Church. Marriage customs in medieval England included the age of the betrothed, dowries, and the social status of the woman in relation to the man, because concubines also had legal status in medieval times. Prior to the 1200’s and Canon Law, consent for marriage was made between parents and children, and the children had little if nothing to do with that consent. In the 1200’s Canon courts defined and enforced laws that was to make it clear as to who was married to whom. So looking at consent laws, customs, and tradition it becomes clearer how

Marriage at that time, was considered a transaction organized by males to serve economical and political ends, in where women were treated as an object, a very useful one intended for procreation, and the exchange of land and goods that they owned

Elizabethan marriages were a very large ordeal involving not only the town but the families of both parties. The large ordeal was not only unnecessary but also very time consuming and stressful. Marriages, birth, and deaths were all the three cycles of life that were dealt with in the church (Evans 6-7). Marriages that were done by law and not church were not registered as there were no witnesses to the betrothal. Church marriages were common and proper as they would be recorded by the pastor (Harrison 1640). Fathers could get rid of their daughters by marrying them off or if he didn’t, when the daughter came of age, the parents would arrange a marriage for the young teenaged girl to a much older man (Evans 6-7). At fourteen, a child had been responsible for all their actions long ago and was now ripe with puberty and at thirty, a man could be financially stable enough to provide for a bride and any children she might bring. All the girl’s possessions would go to the man so wealthy women never remained single for long. If problems in the marriage arose, nothing could be done because the rules of the church stated that marriage lasted until the death of each party. Not only were marriages done without the age of both parties in mind, but marriages were not for love. Families married to carry on the family surname and increase possessions and

Seventeenth century countries approaching an impending economic cascade would have considered marrying off a child of the monarchy (or similar form of ruling party) to a neighboring country with the ability to save the failing nation from economic demise. In such a case as this, it becomes quite simple to see the relation of sex in the private domain to that of the public realm in that, though the two political figures to be married might very well possess a fruitful sexual relationship in the privacy of the bedroom, the impetus for this relationship was a public one, to save one nation from down fall (and for another nation to acquire the land of a country determined to save itself from worse fates). To ally nations in the hopes of perpetuating one’s self, in the hopes of acquiring wealth in land, or in the hopes of simply passing a name down to resonate in future years one can bear witness to the privacy of the sexual fantasy, of the long term marriage, of the family becoming a publicity whereupon the weight of nations can bear down on the fruit of a union. When a couple is formed whether amongst monarchs or university students, there is public bearing on the fruits of their union, if they succeed a name could be passed down,

Judge William Blackstone had announced that husbands could administer "moderate correction" to disobedient wives, and there were other means: as late as 1895, Edith Lanchester's father had her kidnapped and committed to a lunatic asylum for cohabiting with a man” (Wojtczak, “English Women’s History”). Although religion is not explicitly mentioned in Hard Times, religious values were involved in the social structure of England. Social and government laws were based on religious morals. For example, The Bible specifically states, “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband” (King James Version, 1. Corinthians. 7.3). The Bible notes that the husband should treat his wife with benevolence. When one thinks of marriage, they think of love and emotions. This certainly does not seem to be the case in Mr. and Mrs. Gradgrind’s marriage. A perfect example of this is when Mrs. Gradgrind quotes on her deathbed, “You must remember my dear, that whenever I have said anything, on any subject, I have never heard the last of it; and consequently, that I have long left off saying anything” (Dickens’ 151). To expand this further, The Bible also notes that, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis, 2.24). The Bible promotes the idea of a man and woman being together as “one flesh.” To be “one” is to be equal or balanced. This is not the