Tudor Marriage: Barriers

The need for so much planning and negotiation in making a marriage in Tudor England was due to the greater barriers to marriage that existed during that time. Modern couples come to marriage for no more profound reason than because they have decided that they love each other. They need not obtain any approval or negotiate any contract; they simply do as they please. The Tudor couple had a more difficult journey ahead of them.

Not only was the wherewithal to survive of paramount importance, but couples usually were made up of two people from families of relatively similar means. If one of them did not bring their fair share to the union, it was expected that they have something else to offer that was desired by their potential spouse. For example, a daughter of a poor but titled family may make a good match with a rich merchant.

The Money Changer and His Wife by Matsys

As long as the couple could come together and, between the two of them, make a good life together, this issue could be overcome. What you would not often see is two people of little means getting married. Not only would their union be doomed to poverty and hunger, but they could likely not afford the church wedding.

Poor people were much more likely to live as man and wife without an official wedding. Because of the cost of the ceremony, many were content to make their promises to one another and live as handfasted spouses. While this was technically frowned upon by the church, it was a common enough of an occurrence when money was a problem. Since the church also recognized consummated betrothals as marriages, the handfasted couples could legitimately consider themselves married.

Of course, those with enough money could use it to maneuver around many of the remaining barriers that might be blocking the way to their desired match.

One did not often find a titled man marrying a woman of a common family. That was one of the factors that made Edward IV’s choice of Elizabeth Woodville so scandalous. Of course, the fact that he kept the marriage a secret while the Earl of Warwick negotiated a match with a French princess was another good reason. While kings could more often do what they choose, others were constrained by the expectation that they marry someone of a similar status.

It was not that there were any particular laws or rules restricting this, but a marriage was meant to be a match between equals. Each person was expected to bring their fair share into the union. This was scarcely possible if a laundress was to marry an earl.

Marrying one of equal status ensured a steady household and quality bloodline. However, a few lovers were willing to accept the lower status of their spouse in return for more intangible benefits. One such was a princess of France and queen of England, Catherine Valois, who married a servant of her household after King Henry V died.

On the other hand, if both parties were of particularly high status, their match had potential to gain unwanted royal attention. Catherine Grey, daughter of the Duchess of Suffolk, and Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, learned that the hard way during Elizabeth I’s reign. Equal status was just fine, as long as your status did not rival that of the queen.

Consanguinity is a challenging word that few people today can pronounce, let alone define. However, it was a solid barrier to marriage in Tudor times. Rules regarding consanguinity were designed to prevent people from marrying someone with whom they shared too close of a mutual ancestor. Although the risks of genetic defects caused by these relationships was at that time unknown, the church did not allow marriages between kin of certain degrees for Biblical reasons.

Degree of kinship depends upon common ancestry. For example, parents and siblings are within the first degree of consanguinity. First cousins are third degree. Modern canon law disallows marriages within any direct line of kinship and within the fourth degree for collateral lines, which are the branches of a family tree extended by siblings. This is ecclesiastical law, as opposed to divine law, which indicates that it can be altered. In the sixteenth century, breaking these rules left your marriage open to invalidation. If you are wondering why these types of regulations were a challenge, remember those tight-knit villages that people did not travel far beyond.

Not that the concept of consanguinity was solely a problem for common folk. It was actually rather common for the higher echelons of society to require papal dispensation to get around a consanguinity barrier. As families arranged marriages between cousins in order to retain titles and estates within a select circle, consanguinity could easily become a problem. Like many problems, it was more easily solved if one had the money to equip an envoy to visit the Pope and acquire the required dispensation.

Rules and accepted practices regarding consanguinity have changed throughout history. In some times and cultures, it has been acceptable to marry relatives as close as one’s sibling. Today, it is frowned upon to consider even distant cousins. This is more due to social stigma than genetic risk. Risks of genetic problems in children born to first cousins is approximately 1-4% higher than the general population due to shared genes. In Tudor times, people often were married to cousins, even first cousins, but it was important to receive papal approval first.

If a marriage took place within the boundaries of disallowed consanguinity, that bond could more easily be disavowed at a later date. This was this tactic selected by Henry VIII when he decided to set aside his wife of two decades, Katherine of Aragon. Pointing to the fact that she had first been married to his brother, he claimed that God did not bless their marriage due to this previous relationship. He ignored the fact that they had obtained the required papal dispensation allowing their marriage once it became inconvenient to him. King Henry was far from the only man to take advantage of the barriers created by consanguinity to rid himself of a wife he had decided he no longer desired.

Queen Elizabeth I of England, 1592

The need for royal approval was a barrier that common people in Tudor times need not concern themselves with. This was an extra step required of those with royal blood. It was a touchy topic under the Tudor regime to create a union that may be perceived as being more deserving of the crown than the one who wore it. Therefore, matches between the upper strata of noble men and women required the approval of their monarch.

Tudor kings and queens were not always eager to provide their blessing to a marriage that could be seen as a threat. Henry VII, the first Tudor king, set the example of marrying members of the York remnant to those he could trust. Katherine Woodville was married to Henry’s most trusted advisor and uncle, Jasper Tudor. Margaret Plantagenet, the daughter of George of Clarence, was paired with Sir Richard Pole, a man her father would never have considered for her but who was fervently loyal and distantly related to Henry Tudor.

Because these monarchs were so sensitive to which family trees became connected, some decided to marry without their approval. Invoking the age old adage that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, couples would elope and hope for mercy. Some received it, such as Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor, who scandalously wed after Princess Mary’s first husband, the king of France, had died. Others did not. When Cecily of York married a squire after the death of her second husband, Henry VII took hold of her estates and left the former York princess destitute.

The tradition begun by the first Henry Tudor continued under his successors. Henry VIII was initially confident and unthreatened by his extended family making their matches and growing their families. That is, until he had been married for twenty years and had no son to show for it. Yet it was his daughter, Elizabeth, who would show the greatest anger toward those who married without her approval.

Choosing never to marry herself, Elizabeth I was stingy with her approval for those closely enough related to her to require it. She was bothered not one bit by breaking up couples who had pledged their love to one another and insisting that they marry elsewhere. Given her cruel reluctance to approve marriages, there are several examples of those who chose to be married in secret. Unfortunately, with Elizabeth, it was not advisable to need to ask for forgiveness either.

Both of the sisters of Lady Jane Grey bore their queen’s wrath for this form of disobedience. Their marriages were broken up and the participants imprisoned. Neither cousin of the queen was allowed to live with their husbands or raise families that might threaten Elizabeth’s hold on her kingdom. While not required for most marriages, those who attempted to thwart the royal approval they needed often faced harsh penalties.

A precontract or betrothal agreement was necessary for a marriage to take place, but it could also become a barrier if one was attempting to make a match after turning down a previous offer. If a betrothal had taken place, especially if the union had been consummated, the consequences to a subsequent marriage could be severe.

A preexisting betrothal is just one of the arguments used by the frequently remarried Henry VIII. The precontract could dash the hopes of a couple or help an eager partner hold on to one who may have become disenchanted. Tudor betrothals were not as simply broken as our modern day engagements.

A consummated union was difficult to dissolve. Anyone who has heard about Katherine of Aragon’s unceasing insistence that her marriage to Arthur Tudor was never consummated cannot doubt the importance of this act. A marriage that had not been consummated was often considered not to be a marriage at all. Therefore, though Katherine and Henry had a papal dispensation absolving them from any sin of consanguinity, Katherine insisted that her first marriage had never been validated to create the familial link.

Henry later used this argument to successfully obtain an annulment from his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves. She wisely went along with his wishes and agreed to the dissolution of her marriage, admitting that it had never been consummated.

In short, precontract and consummation, especially if it occurred before the wedding vows, were the ideal way to solidify a desired union, but they could create a solid barrier to one who was attempting to make another match.


Don't miss the rest of the Tudor Marriage Blog Series!

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional Reading:

Ingram, Martin. Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England. 1570-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

O'Hara, Diana.  Courtship and Constraint: Rethinking the Making of Marriage in Tudor England. Manchester and New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000.  

Cressy, David. Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Swinburne, Henry. Treatise of Spousals or Matrimonial Contracts. London: 1686.