This was a hard line; your only way out of it in terms of "annulled for non-consummation" was in fact if one party (usually the man) had DECEIVED the other party about whether he was CAPABLE of consummating.
This is ringing a bell from translating medieval canon law in Latin, thanks for the reminder!
also obviously the powerful did their best to ignore it or get the Pope to magically annul things based on impediments they either made up
"After umpteen years of marriage, we just discovered we're too closely related! I need an annulment so I can go marry someone equally closely related who might not be barren!" One historian I was reading recently got snarky about this. Most of them just report it. :P
One party saying they were forced into the marriage was also valid grounds for annulment, at least in the Renaissance and continuing into my period. Usually (impressionistically speaking, I have no stats) this is the woman speaking, but 15th-century Louis XII comes to mind: he wanted a divorce, so he argued that he was married against his will below the age of consent (they were both about 11-14, of course no one knew exactly), and also claimed he'd never consummated the marriage (something his wife contested).
Women obviously had a stronger case, overall, for being made to do things without their consent.
(Which reminds me, in my period, Protestant King Frederick William I asked his local pastors if filial piety meant he could marry his daughter off against her will. They all agreed marriage was a sacrament and required the consent of both parties. His response? "I don't like your answer, so I'm going to do it anyway.")
my focus area obviously trickles off after the early-moderns pretty abruptly; I find the Wars of Religion a headache. XD)
See, I agree with this, which is my focus starts when the Wars of Religion are over and everyone is openly fighting over territory and trade! Hence my period begins with the late 17th century. XD
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2022-06-18 08:15 pm (UTC)This is ringing a bell from translating medieval canon law in Latin, thanks for the reminder!
also obviously the powerful did their best to ignore it or get the Pope to magically annul things based on impediments they either made up
"After umpteen years of marriage, we just discovered we're too closely related! I need an annulment so I can go marry someone equally closely related who might not be barren!" One historian I was reading recently got snarky about this. Most of them just report it. :P
One party saying they were forced into the marriage was also valid grounds for annulment, at least in the Renaissance and continuing into my period. Usually (impressionistically speaking, I have no stats) this is the woman speaking, but 15th-century Louis XII comes to mind: he wanted a divorce, so he argued that he was married against his will below the age of consent (they were both about 11-14, of course no one knew exactly), and also claimed he'd never consummated the marriage (something his wife contested).
Women obviously had a stronger case, overall, for being made to do things without their consent.
(Which reminds me, in my period, Protestant King Frederick William I asked his local pastors if filial piety meant he could marry his daughter off against her will. They all agreed marriage was a sacrament and required the consent of both parties. His response? "I don't like your answer, so I'm going to do it anyway.")
my focus area obviously trickles off after the early-moderns pretty abruptly; I find the Wars of Religion a headache. XD)
See, I agree with this, which is my focus starts when the Wars of Religion are over and everyone is openly fighting over territory and trade! Hence my period begins with the late 17th century. XD