Left At the Altar: A Medieval Version of Pre-nuptial Agreement.

We hear frequently these days of gold-diggers marrying men for money and air-tight pre-nuptial agreements that precede the marriage.  Basically, people of unequal status joining together in holy matrimony.

Before the public interest and governmental control, marriage was often between two people and their families and while a public spectacle, it was not necessarily controlled or sanctioned by the government for many years. In fact for many years, a couple just needed to make a declaration before God. However, a number of young women would be seduced into bed with promises of marriage that did not come to fruition. So there were changes to protect the virtue of women by declaring that there must be witnesses to the marriage.  Though, once a marriage occurred they were joined together in body, spirit and mind. Any progeny would be entitled to rights and privileges according to the status of their parents. Normally, this was of no issue amongst couples of equal status, but what of couples of unequal status?

Well, this was usually an issue with the upper nobility who had decided to marry someone of low status. This of course was almost exclusively upper noblemen and lower status women, but there are a few cases of women. Many members of their family would insist that if they deign to marry beneath them, then they should at the very least, marry them morganatically.

Marrying morganatically meant that the status' of either person in the couple remained unchanged. But it also meant that any children resulting from the union would not be entitled to the possible titles, ranks and property of the higher status person. These marriages were also colloquially referred to as, "Left-handed marriages".   During the marriage ceremony, the groom will often grab his bride's hand with his left hand instead of his right.

It sounds really unfair, doesn't it? Well, it can be surmised that most of these marriages occurred between couples who were in love with one another and although children were not granted the same inheritance rights as a legitimate heir.  A lot of fathers were rather fond of their children and as such would work to have rights, lands or titles granted to them. Or would create advantageous matches for them and thus would re-ignite the dynastic line. Also, most husbands would bestow or at least try to gain titles for their wives so that some social awkwardness can be avoided. (Not being able to remain seated in the presence of higher ranks is one example).

Some royals that had morganatic marriages:
1) Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon (This one is rather suspect, there's no proof that the marriage existed. However, many of the court believed that it occurred, and there were portraits painted of her wearing regal robes).
2) George William of Brunswick and Eleonore d'Olbreuse. Their daughter, Sophia Dorothea of Celle, was married to George I of Great Britain.
3) Elizabeth I of Russia and Alexei Razumovsky. Again this one is rather unclear. But certainly most people believed that they were married.

A Macabre Coronation: Ines de Castro

We have been privy to a few coronations in the past few years, though none have reached the pomp and circumstance of the ones of yesteryear. Coronations of a new king/queen were regarded as highly important and no expense was spared to show the new ruler off. 


However, one of the strangest coronations to have existed goes to Ines De Castro, the wife of Pedro I of Portugal.

For you see, Ines de Castro was already dead a few years. Upon his accension to the throne, Pedro had his secret (some say not legitimate) wife exhumed from her burial plot and presented to the court as a legitimate queen.

Pedro I was madly in love with his wife, Ines de Castro, when she was brutally murdered by Pedro's father, King Afonso V.  Ines de Castro started her notorious life at court when she accompanied Pedro's wife, the Infanta Constantia of Castile, as her lady-in-waiting.  Although Constantia was his wife, Pedro  only had eyes for Ines.  Her settled Ines into a monastery outside of the palace and visited frequently and sent many love letters to his darling love.

There were attempts made to separate the pair. Upon the birth of Constantia and Pedro's son, Ines was made the godmother, which in the time period would make Ines a member of the family and therefore, the dalliance between the two to be deemed incestuous. This did nothing to temper the passion between the two. King Afonso banished Ines back to Castile for a time period in 1344.  But Pedro would go and visit her in Castile.  Fortunately for the couple, they weren't separated for very long as Constantia died in 1345 after giving birth to their third child, Dom Fernando.

After her death, Pedro gave up all sense of propriety and retrieved his Ines and the pair began to live openly together. They had four children together, which raised concern with many at the court inheritance of the crown. The child that Constantia had in 1345 was still living, and many were afraid that the child of Ines and Pedro would try and usurp  Dom Fernando's rights to the throne.  Additionally, Ines' brothers became close to Pedro and were leading Pedro down a path that would only lead to war and destruction. They were trying to persuade Pedro that he should seize the throne of Castile, which was a very fantastical idea even though Pedro had a claim through his grandfather.

The King soon decided that something must be done about this family. One night when Pedro was away, the King called together his counselors to decide what should be done. They came to the conclusion that Ines must die. Rather brutally, she was stabbed to death in front of her children with Pedro.

When Pedro found out that Ines had been murdered at the hands of his father, he reacted with fury and swift. Along with Ines' two brothers, he organized a revolt against the King. His troops swept through the country and laid siege to Porto, when his mother, the Queen, intervened to bring some peace between Father and Son. Within 2 years, King Afonso was dead and the new King Pedro brought 2 of 3 Ines' direct killers to justice.  He had both men take from Castile, where they had escaped, and had them tortured. He had the hearts of both of them ripped out from their chest cavity watching as he ate his dinner. The third killer would never be found.

In 1360, five years after the death of Ines and three years into his own reign, Pedro announced that he and Ines were secretly married. And as legend has it, he had the body of his beloved exhumed and dressed in regal coronation robes and made his entire court swear fealty and kiss the bottom of her robes. After the ceremony, he had her re-buried in a pomp ceremony deserving of the Queen of Portugal.

What’s In a Name?

Many of us have strong attachments to our names, never changing them or changing them upon marriage (though usually that is primarily women) as a signifier of belonging to a new clan.

          I am at an age when most of my friends are married, and in most cases,  the woman changes her last name to her husbands. There is nothing at all wrong with this idea. Your name is your own, to change at will. 

          Though it is amazing how many men will balk at women refusing to take another man’s last name or even further snort with derision at the prospect of taking on a woman’s last name. Some have said to me, “It’s just how it’s done.”

             Well no. Not exactly.  Each culture has different naming traditions for women, and not all of them require women assuming the name of their husband upon marriage. However, even if women retain their maiden name, it is often the name of their father.

ANCIENT ROME

In Ancient Rome, the naming structure to non-enslaved men were praenomen (first name), nomen (last name), and cognomen (branch of the last name).  Not all men had the cognomen, and some men would have an additional name signifying a great deed to the empire. One such person is Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, because of him effectively ending the war with Carthage.

However, women were not given a praenomen. They would be given a feminized form of their family’s nomen and if there were two daughters, they may be given the names of maior or minor.  If there were three or more daughters, they may be given prima, secunda, tertiary etc. In public sphere, they may be called by their husbands or father’s name in addition. Gaius Augustus Caesar’s daughter was named Julia Caesaris or Vispania Meteli, wife of Metellus. 

In the later Republic, women were given feminized forms of nomens of prominent family members. Julia Caesaris married Marcus Vispanius Agrippa, and her daughters were named Julia, and Agrippina. Because let’s face it, being a granddaughter of the Emperor is totally boss.

So more often than not, a woman’s name in Ancient Rome reflected that of her father and his family and remained so upon marriage.

IMPERIAL CHINA

In late Imperial China, most families had the daughter-in-law move in with the family of her husband and the daughter-in-law would assume the name. Some cases though, especially if a family had no sons and another had sons to spare, they may require that their son-in-law move in with them and assume the family name. This is so that the family name can live on.

ICELAND

Iceland is one of the few cultures in the modern world that retain a patronymic or matronymic naming structures.

Meaning that when a child is born they are given a first name and their last name is their father’s/mother’s first name with the addition of sson/dottir.

So a child may be given the name Gunnar and if their parent’s first name is Helga and Odin, then the child’s last name may be either Helguson or Odinsson. Most often, the last name is the form of the father’s than the mother’s. They keep the name throughout their lives, which means that the women will not change their name upon marriage.

So while, it is "traditional" for women to assume their husband's name. It hasn't always been, everywhere. 

Anyone have any other naming traditions to share?

How to Create the Perfect Wife by Wendy Moore

No, this is not a manual for creating the perfect helpmeet. Abstractly it is about an experiment of sorts conducted by an 18^th century philosopher, Thomas Day.

Thomas Day had a problem. He had exceptionally ridiculous level of expectations of his future wife, and no woman could meet them or if they came perilously close they would recoil at said expectations that and bolt to the next gentleman caller.

This is the second book that I have read by Wendy Moore who again through her tenacity for research provides a nuanced view of Thomas Day and his experiment. She presents him as neither villain nor hero. But as a human man who rather surreptitiously adopted two young girls in hopes of moulding them into his human companion.

It was of course a huge folly. Thomas Day was influenced by Rosseau’s educational instruction manual, Emile, but so much like the rest of the elite of 18^th century Europe. Rosseau called for harsh integration of children into society, meaning that by immersing children into extremes of weather or play that you could create an adult that could adapt well into society. “Harden their bodies about the intemperance of season, the climates, the elements. Inure them to hunger, thirst and fatigue. Dip them in the waters of Styx”. In modernity, practicing such parenting techniques would result in the loss of your children. Most parents would be shocked at such practices. However, this was done widely by the elites, who believed Rosseau to be incredibly intelligent and above all correct in his teachings. Many parents today subscribe to parenting tomes that can strain credulity to forefathers, “spare the rod, spoil the child” would raise many a brow.

This is the world in which Day lived in, and he practiced Rosseau’s decrees with ferocity, as did his friends and colleagues with their own children. However, none used it to create their wives or companions, but they all watched Day’s experiment with baited breath.

Day used some care when selecting two young women who he would mould into his helpmeet. He went to a foundling hospital and offered an apprenticeship to two beautiful young women. This guise was soon discarded, however, the girls never did find out what the point of his education. Even after he had decided that both girls had failed to meet his expectations. Ideally, Day wanted to live a very isolated pastoral life with his love. A woman who was fleshy and buxom and intelligent, but not more so than him, one who would acquiesce to all of his demands and be happy with meagre food and living. (I know I am for one SHOCKED that he couldn't find the "right" woman). 

Set against the rich tapestry of Georgian England. This is a profound adventure of one man searching for love. 

Did Day find his perfect wife? Well. You'll have to read to find out. 

Bow(es) before this Worst Husband Ever!

Ahh. Wedding season is upon us! My Facebook is saturated with photos celebrating weddings, anniversaries and wedding showers. The season of love, family, togetherness and open bars.
We hear wedding speeches from the bride/groom extolling the virtues of their partner. Most of them marry someone that is at least decent, and not reprehensible. The same cannot be said for: Lady Mary Eleanor Bowes' husband, Andrew Robinson Stoney Bowes who was awarded the title of "Britain's Worst Husband".


In a time where few people (and no women) were granted a divorce, Mary Eleanor was given one. Though it was not without much perseverance, tenacity, and many many servants and friends.

Mary Eleanor Bowes was born 24 February 1749 to Sir George Bowes and Mary Gilbert, she was his only child and heiress to an enormous fortune (many coal mines). He died when she was 11, and she became the wealthiest heiress in all of Great Britain. At the age of 16, she became engaged to John Lyon, the Earl of Strathmore. They married on her 18th birthday. Due to a stipulation in her father's will, her husband took on the last name of Bowes. Some of her children would later take on their father's last name as well, becoming Bowes-Lyon (they are direct ancestors of the Queen Mother).

Mary Eleanor had interests in botany and literature, and used her wealth to support expeditions to South Africa to acquire plants for her growing gardens and greenhouses.

She gave birth to five children with John: Maria (born 1768), John (born 1769), Anna (born 1770), George (born 1771), and William (born 1773).

Unfortunately, in 1776 her husband John Lyons contracted tuberculosis and died, leaving her wide open to unscrupulous fortune hunters.  At least during her widowhood, she was able to retain control of her own estates.

Before Stoney, Mary conducted a long term affair with George Gray, a man who had squandered his first wife's fortune. Mary became pregnant by him four times (she was evidently incredible fertile), of which three ended in a self-induced abortion. She was hesitant to marry him, due to his lack of rank and propensity to squander fortunes. However, during her fourth pregnancy she decided to marry him and they became engaged in August 1777.

In walks in Andrew Robinson Stoney......

A charming, manipulative sociopath wiled his way into the household of the Dowager Countess. Then he put his plan into action. He had previously married a wealthy woman, who died and he was out of money. The perfect plum for the picking was the wealthiest widow, Mary Eleanor.  Although, Mary was not quite as foolish as first thought, as she had a prenuptial agreement written up before her impending marriage to Gray. The agreement stated that she has sole control of her entire fortune.

One night, Mary Eleanor rushed to the deathbed of Andrew promised to love, honour and obey him until death them part. Little did she know, that he was not in fact mortally wounded but was an actor of epic proportions.

Newspapers had published rumours and gossip about Mary Eleanor. Although dueling was technically illegal, it was still widely practiced amongst the gentry and upper classes. Andrew Stoney challenged one editor of a newspaper to a duel to defend Mary's honour and dignity. The editor (unscrupulous himself) participated in this farce. Andrew "mortally wounded" after their duel. Mary Eleanor rushed to his deathbed and overcome with gratitude asked him what his last wish was and asked that she marry him.  Of course she said yes, and a minister was quickly found.

He didn't even wait a couple days before "getting better". It was Mary Eleanor's biggest regret and once he found out about the prenuptial agreement, he made her sign a revocation of it. Though she had carefully given the original prenup to her loyal servant.  Over a decade of marriage,  he leveled a series of abuses upon her that shocked even the more severe Georgian Brits. Their servants would report that they would see him pinch, punch, kick, burn her and of course verbally abuse her. Most of the servants remained mum, because they were in the pay of Andrew and he would explain away the abuses. He would also frequently rape the female servants, impregnate many of them and then force them to give birth in a brothel and abandon them. Also, her children were in the custody of her former brother-in-law, Thomas Lyon, who refused her any access. Andrew would try a series of stunts to try to wrest them from their uncle and thus have more playing chips for Mary Eleanor's money was only at his disposal as long as she was still alive.

In walks in Mary Morgan, a servant recommended by their minister, and not under the influence of Andrew. After witnessing much of the abuse, Mary Eleanor took this lovely woman into her confidences and told her everything that had happened over the years. Morgan was appalled. Over months, two more servants were hired and Morgan took them into her confidences about Mary's maltreatment. One night, Andrew was out and they put their plan into action to flee. Mary hid under her servants clothing and fled as fast as she could. Her chaperones were distracted until it was too late and quickly informed Andrew who came home as fast as he could.

Morgan and the two other servants quickly followed her, leaving behind all of their wages and their belongings and met up at a predetermined location. However, her fight was not over. Her fortune, her two children with Andrew and her estate was still in the hands of Andrew.

To be continued........

Insane in the Memb(reign)

So...... I must discuss the clusterfuck that was the series premiere of Reign. The show with so much potential as it is based upon many interesting historical figures. So disappointing. There are several glaring historical inaccuracies that are just beyond offensive and deserve severe rebuking!

1) THESE PEOPLE ARE FRENCH! THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ENGLISH ACCENTS! Mary Queen of Scots grew up in France and has a French mother. SHE WOULD HAVE A FRENCH ACCENT! The King of France IS FRENCH! Queen Catherine is ITALIAN and would have a strange accent BUT NOT ENGLISH!

2) Urgh. The OUTFITS. Seriously.

3) There was no Bash. Diane de Poitiers had no children with the King.

4) Mary Queen of Scots grew up in the French court. Not a bloody convent. I know that would defeat the dramatic flair of the nun convulsing to death after being poisoned. But srlsy.

5) Elisabeth, the French princess, married Philip II of Spain in SPAIN. She didn't marry some hot young dude, she married a man that had been married twice already and eighteen years older.

6) THOSE OUTFITS!

7) Mary, Queen of Scots was six feet tall. Not some tiny frail little thing.

8) I highly doubt Catherine de Medici would make some comments about Colin's family being upstarts, especially since her family were...... BANKERS! *scoffs* faints*

9) Diane de Poitiers was 20 years older than King Henry, and an incredibly interesting, smart, thoughtful woman. Not some mere mistress.

10) Young Francis was weak, short and kind of funny looking. Hardly the handsome dude on television. But no one wants to see funny looking people on television.

That's what I got so far. I may watch the second episode to see if it has improved somewhat.

Ignatius Sancho!

This week is midterms week, luckily next week is Study Week! WOO! Todays important historical figure is Ignatius Sancho!


"I am sorry to observe that the practice of your country (which as a resident I love - and for its freedom - and for the many blessings I enjoy in it - shall ever have my warmest wishes, prayers and blessings); I say it is with reluctance, that I must observe your country's conduct has been uniformly wicked in the East - West-Indies - and even on the coast of Guinea. The grand object of English navigators - indeed of all Christian navigators - is money - money - money - for which I do not pretend to blame them - Commerce was meant by the goodness of the Deity to diffuse the various goods of the earth into every part--to unite mankind in the blessed chains of brotherly love - society - and mutual dependence: the enlightened Christian should diffuse the riches of the Gospel of peace - with the commodities of his respective land - Commerce attended with strict honesty - and with Religion for its companion - would be a blessing to every shore it touched at. In Africa, the poor wretched natives blessed with the most fertile and luxuriant soil- are rendered so much the more miserable for what Providence meant as a blessing: the Christians' abominable traffic for slaves and the horrid cruelty and treachery of the petty Kings encouraged by their Christian customers who carry them strong liquors to enflame their national madness - and powder - and bad fire-arms - to furnish them with the hellish means of killing and kidnapping." -Ignatius Sancho

Ignatius Sancho was born on a slave ship in 1729, although his exact birthplace and date is unknown. Though he ended up at New Granada soon after, both parents died before his second year. His father had committed suicide so that he couldn't be enslaved, and his mother died from unknown causes. After their deaths, he was taken to England to slave for three sisters in Greenwich.

Somehow he caught the attention of John Montagu, the 2nd Duke of Montagu who acknowledged Ignatius' superior intellect and gave him books and encouraged his studies. Eventually, Ignatius fled the three sisters in Greenwich in 1749 to live with John Montagu, where he worked as their butler until 1751. It was there that he immersed himself in music, literature, poetry and learning. Upon the death of the Duchess of Montagu, he was given a pension, and a years salary. Sometime in the 1760s, he became the personal valet to the next Duke of Montague until 1773. He was considered by many to be a man of discretion, refinement and superior intellect. In 1774, Montagu helped this learned man open a grocery store. As an independent business owner, he had more time to spend with his growing family (he married in the 1760s to Ann Osborne and had six children) and qualified to vote in the British elections. He is considered to be the first Black person to vote in the elections. He also found the time to write two plays and Theory of Music and create an extensive correspondence with other learned men and women. One of his friends, Frances Crewe, would publish 160 letters in two volumes after his death, which included details of his enslavement and issues of racism that he had faced.

Since the mid-1760s, he called for the abolition of the slave trade, writing to Laurence Sterne to use his own pen to lobby. His letter and Sterne's response to the letter were published and used to ignite the abolition debate. He became one of the icons for the abolitionist movement, referring to him as the "extraordinary Negro"

Ignatius died in 1780 of gout and became the first African to receive an obituary in the British press.