I think I found potential future wives

[Jacob Harrison]

What makes you think that you have a right to Beverly if she rejected you? Marriage is a matter of consent.

D'yeh think in your beloved Middle Ages it was a matter of consent boyo?

Elucidate us Jacob, tell us about "consent" in medieval Christendom.

Well in royal families, marriages were often done for political reasons mainly alliances between Kingdom’s or Duchies.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

What makes you think that you have a right to Beverly if she rejected you? Marriage is a matter of consent.

D'yeh think in your beloved Middle Ages it was a matter of consent boyo?

Elucidate us Jacob, tell us about "consent" in medieval Christendom.

Well in royal families, marriages were often done for political reasons mainly alliances between Kingdom’s or Duchies.

Could a wife withhold consent from her husband?

[Jacob Harrison]

What makes you think that you have a right to Beverly if she rejected you? Marriage is a matter of consent.

D'yeh think in your beloved Middle Ages it was a matter of consent boyo?

Elucidate us Jacob, tell us about "consent" in medieval Christendom.

Well in royal families, marriages were often done for political reasons mainly alliances between Kingdom’s or Duchies.

Could a wife withhold consent from her husband?

Yes I think so.

[Jacob Harrison]

I replied to Beverly and said this to her.

"Hello, do you want to marry me in the future. Since I am a Roman Catholic, what you must agree to do is get baptized for the marriage to be recognized as legitimate
by the Church and also agree to let me raise our children to be Catholic, and for the eldest of them to be raised to be my successor the Grand Master of a Society that I am starting
I am 19 right now, but we can get married after I graduate from college in 2021"

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

What makes you think that you have a right to Beverly if she rejected you? Marriage is a matter of consent.

D'yeh think in your beloved Middle Ages it was a matter of consent boyo?

Elucidate us Jacob, tell us about "consent" in medieval Christendom.

Well in royal families, marriages were often done for political reasons mainly alliances between Kingdom’s or Duchies.

Could a wife withhold consent from her husband?

Yes I think so.

You think so, huh?

Most people are familiar with the idea that people at that time were married very young, and that arranged marriages were the norm. I’m happy to report that this was not always the case; prepubescent betrothals were typical only for those among the aristocracy who had a limited pool of peers. As you move up the social pyramid, there are fewer and fewer people around your particular rung, which means good matches for your sons and daughters (meaning ones that increase your wealth or social standing) get a bit thin on the ground. That is certainly not to say that marriages were not arranged; they very often were. For example the History of the Counts of Guines provides a classic example of aristocratic marriages, where the eldest men of the family (often grandfathers or fathers, but sometimes uncles or even older siblings) would arrange marriages for the women in the family in order to increase their own prospects and that of their clan. Sons sometimes could find their own bride, but not always—and often only with approval from the patriarch.

If that were not bad enough for aristocratic women, there was another option for the ambitious bachelor: marriage by abduction. Yes, it was considered a valid part of “traditional marriage” during much of the Middle Ages for a man to acquire a bride by kidnapping an eligible woman and forcing her to marry him. And since, as discussed above, a marriage is not fully binding until sex, there is the implication that rape was necessarily part of this. This is not limited to thuggish petty knights roaming the countryside; both Theobald V, Count of Blois, and Geoffrey, Count of Nantes attempted to marry Eleanor of Aquitaine—then the most eligible woman in Europe—by kidnapping her. Cleverly, Eleanor managed to evade them, and afterwards elected to get married very quickly, not least to thwart these and any future plots. But what a truly horrid choice to be forced into—being required to be married out of fear that you will be kidnapped, raped and forced to marry your rapist. Making matters even worse, as Caroline Dunn argues, that lawmakers typically “neglected unwilling victims of bride-theft because their focus was on consensual elopements.” In other words, they were too busy cracking down on couples eloping against the wishes of their aristocratic families than on the women kidnapped against their will.

Hm.

And then there's this.

It was frequently declared that clerical sins should be overlooked unless they became a public scandal, exceptionally light penalties were imposed, and frequent dispensations and absolutions were granted by the Curia.

Now what does that remind me of?

[Jacob Harrison]

1. Right it involved the consent of the families making it still consensual

2. Well under Catholic Canon law, forced marriages are grounds for annulment.

[dpareja]

1. Right it involved the consent of the families making it still consensual

2. Well under Catholic Canon law, forced marriages are grounds for annulment.

1. No, consent means the willing, uncoerced agreement of the parties involved--the people getting married. The families get fuck all to say about it, and certainly cannot consent on behalf of their children.

2. Was that true back in the halcyon days of feudalism?

[Jacob Harrison]

1. Right it involved the consent of the families making it still consensual

2. Well under Catholic Canon law, forced marriages are grounds for annulment.

1. No, consent means the willing, uncoerced agreement of the parties involved--the people getting married. The families get fuck all to say about it, and certainly cannot consent on behalf of their children.

2. Was that true back in the halcyon days of feudalism?

1. Well it means that it wasn't a husband forcing it on bride, it was the families forcing it on both the bride and groom. These marriages brought stability.

2. Coerced marriage due to kidnapping being grounds for annulment has been part of Catholic canon law for centuries.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, if this doesn't pan out for you, I know where you can meet plenty of women like these two.

(click to show/hide)

https://www.pornhub.com/user/search?username=&verified=1&city=&gender=2&orientation=0&relation=1&country=US&o=newest&age1=0&age2=0

[dpareja]

1. Right it involved the consent of the families making it still consensual

2. Well under Catholic Canon law, forced marriages are grounds for annulment.

1. No, consent means the willing, uncoerced agreement of the parties involved--the people getting married. The families get fuck all to say about it, and certainly cannot consent on behalf of their children.

2. Was that true back in the halcyon days of feudalism?

1. Well it means that it wasn't a husband forcing it on bride, it was the families forcing it on both the bride and groom. These marriages brought stability.

2. Coerced marriage due to kidnapping being grounds for annulment has been part of Catholic canon law for centuries.

1. I don't care how much stability they brought, both parties are being forced into a marriage that, given a free choice, neither might necessarily want. That's not consent--but then we all already know you think freedom is a bad thing.

2. Citation?

[Jacob Harrison]

1. Right it involved the consent of the families making it still consensual

2. Well under Catholic Canon law, forced marriages are grounds for annulment.

1. No, consent means the willing, uncoerced agreement of the parties involved--the people getting married. The families get fuck all to say about it, and certainly cannot consent on behalf of their children.

2. Was that true back in the halcyon days of feudalism?

1. Well it means that it wasn't a husband forcing it on bride, it was the families forcing it on both the bride and groom. These marriages brought stability.

2. Coerced marriage due to kidnapping being grounds for annulment has been part of Catholic canon law for centuries.

1. I don't care how much stability they brought, both parties are being forced into a marriage that, given a free choice, neither might necessarily want. That's not consent--but then we all already know you think freedom is a bad thing.

2. Citation?

The Catholic's Code of Canon Law is based on Gratians decree from the 12th century, indicating that the part that forbidden coerced marriages due to kidnapping was around since then.

[davedan]

What makes you think that you have a right to Beverly if she rejected you? Marriage is a matter of consent.

We have passed beyond interference with Courting. Whatever choice the fair Beverly makes is inconsequential to our matter of honour.