The Lives of Noble Women in Ancient Europe

There is a wealth of similarly enchanting ladies in the sweaty tales of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, though how far they reflect the flesh-and-blood reality of the lives of the women of the castle is difficult to say. Very little has been written about the personalities and private lives of the women who presided over the internal affairs at Chepstow and other castles. One fact, however, is borne out by overwhelming evidence: castle ladies were customarily pawns in the political and economic games played by men.

While a woman could own, inherit, buy, sell, or give land to someone else, and lay claim to it in court, a woman spent much of her life under the guardianship of a man - a father before she married, a husband afterward, until she was widowed. If her father died before her marriage, she would be placed under the guardianship of her father's superior feudal lord, who found it necessary to take a legal interest in her marriage because her husband would be his bannerman. In the case of an heiress, marriage was an extremely lucrative transaction - the suitor was likely to pay a large sum of money for the privilege of this inheritance. But guardianship itself was a sought-after goal, as the guardian could draw income from the ward's estate until the ward married. Many medieval lawsuits were fought over wealthy wards, and even those who were not so wealthy attracted greedy eyes.In 1185, Henry II ordered a list of all the widows and heirs in his dominion territory in order to ferret out possible royal interests. The ages, children, lands, livestock, rents, and tools of these widows were listed at length. A typical entry reads:

"Thomas. De. Bifoio's widow, Ellis. De. Bifoio, is in the guardianship of His Majesty the King. She is twenty years of age and has a son of two years as heir. Her lands in Seaton are worth ￡5.68. She has the following estates, two ploughs, one hundred sheep, two draught animals, two sows, one boar and four cows. In the first year since the land came into her hands, her income from rent was 36 pence 10 cents and two pounds of pepper. In addition to the rent, her tenants gave her four pence and three cartloads of oats."

The guardianship of a wealthy three-month-old orphan provoked the Bury. St. Simon, Abbot of Edmonds, against Henry's son Richard the Lionheart. In the end, the king had to give up and was compensated with some hounds and horses. However, Simon's plans are foiled by the baby's grandfather, who succeeds in kidnapping the girl. Simon eventually sold custody to the Archbishop of Canterbury for ￡100. The little girl survived and was valued, and the archbishop sold custody for 500 marks to the king's court minister and future chief magistrate, Thomas. De. Bourg.

The daughter of a great feudal lord was usually brought up outside her own house - in the castle of another noble family, or in a convent where she could live for the rest of her life if she did not marry. The education of girls was significantly better than that of their brothers. The writers of the saga give a witty and amusing exaggeration of the difference between the education of the sexes, in which the boy learns to "feed the birds, play with falcons, know the hounds, learn archery, learn to play chess and fifteen-child games," or to "learn fencing, horse-riding, and jousting," while the girl learns "to fight," and the girl learns "to fight with the sword, to ride a horse, and to fight in a joust. "Girls, on the other hand, learned "to embroider and weave, to read, write, and speak Latin," or "to sing, tell stories, and embroider," and the ladies of rank were also the proteges of poets, and wrote poems themselves, while others devoted themselves to doing scholarship. Like their husbands, however, the ladies enjoyed hunting and falconry (their seals often depicted them with a falcon in their hands), as well as chess.

The period of girlhood was short. Women became eligible for marriage at the age of twelve, and they were usually married by the age of fourteen. Heiresses might be formally married as early as five, and betrothals could be even earlier, though such unions could be annulled before the marriage was consummated. A woman would have many children by the age of twenty, and by the age of thirty, if she survived the dangers of childbearing unscathed, she might be widowed or remarried, or become a grandmother.

While personal choice and physical attractiveness played a part in the marriages of peasant girls on the estates (where they were usually married after pregnancy), the marriages of noblewomen were too important to be dictated by personal preference. Exceptions existed. King Henry III's sister, Elena, was married at the age of nine to William of Chepst Castle. Earl William Marshall II of Chepsted Castle at the age of nine, and was widowed at the age of sixteen. She was subsequently married to Simon de. de Montfort. In 1238, in the King of Westminster's private chapel, the King himself gave his bride to Montfort. The following year the king, in a quarrel with Montfort, revealed that he had "vilely and secretly dishonored Elena" in his pursuit of her. According to Matthew Paris. Paris, the king's words were something like, "You seduced my sister before the marriage, and when I found out I gave her in marriage to you to avoid a scandal, even though it was against my will."

There is evidence that many marriages were happy. The fourteenth-century aristocratic writer Geoffrey . De . La. Durr, describing his late wife, wrote movingly:

"She was both beautiful and virtuous, possessing all the nobility of knowledge ... of good behavior, she was a model of all virtues. I was so enamored of her that I composed songs, ballads, psalms, and the best I could write in her honor. But death, which spares none, took her from me. Her death has given me many painful thoughts and a heavy heart. For more than twenty years I thought of her and my heart was filled with sorrow. The heart of a true lover never forgets the woman he truly loves."

While there was no divorce in the legal sense, the prohibition against unions of consanguinity provided a general justification for annulment lawsuits, especially when said prohibition was extended to distant relatives, and even relationships arising from marriage could be used as a justification. In 1253, Roger, lord of Chepst Castle and grandson of William. In 1253 the owner of Chepst Castle and grandson of William Marshal the First, Roger Bighead, divorced his wife. Roger Earl of Bighead divorced his wife - who was the daughter of the King of Scotland - because Roger and she were allegedly unsuitable for marriage due to their connection through intermarriage between their families. The Church ruled that Roger must take her back, and Roger relented: "As this is the ruling of the Church, I am content to submit to the marriage, though I was formerly perplexed and doubtful about it."

The bride brought a dowry, and also received one-third of her husband's estate as a gift. Sometimes, on the day of the marriage, certain lands were designated at the church door for the bride, which reverted to her after her husband's passing. Even in the absence of such a formal transfer, one-third of her husband's land is legally speaking hers. If the heir to the land (i.e., the groom) was slow in handing over these lands, she could go to the royal court so that she could be assured of receiving them. Throughout feudal times, such marital grants were recognized as a fixed number. Gradually, however, such grants were replaced at the time of marriage by mutually agreed settlements.

Once a woman was married, she was under the "stick" or "power" of her husband. She could not object even if her husband sold the land she had inherited. She cannot go to court without her husband. Or make a will without her husband's consent.

Women reclaimed some of their rights in calling themselves widows. Sometimes a widow could even successfully sue to reclaim land that had been sold by her late husband because "she could not say no while he was alive." In pre-Magna Carta England, however, the king could force the widows of his tenants-in-chief to remarry, and if they wished to remain unmarried or to choose their own husbands, they had to pay the king a large sum of money. Magna Carta limited the king's power in this respect, but it also reaffirmed that widows could not marry without the consent of the superior feudal lord, whether he was the king or a vassal of the king. Another provision of the Magna Carta stated that no one in the king's care, whether a widow or a virgin, should be "degraded" - married to someone of lower status.

The consent of the parties was a legal condition of marriage. A marriage could be annulled because it was contracted against the will of one of the parties. In 1215, King John married the young Margaret to the mercenary leader Falcos. Falkes de. Falkes de Breaute, daughter of the king's court minister and widow of the heir to the Earl of Devon. After Falkes was exiled in 1224, Margaret appeared before the king and the archbishop and demanded an annulment, claiming that she had never consented to the marriage. After Margaret's death in 1252, Matthew . Matthew Paris described the marriage as "a union of nobility and vileness, of piety and irreverence, of beauty and disgrace." He also quoted a verse written by someone in Latin:

"The law united them, love and bedlam in harmony.

But which law? Which love? Which kind of harmony?

The law outside the law, the hateful love, the disharmonious harmony. "

This chronicler (referring to Matthew. Parris) fails to mention the fact that Margaret had been married to Falcos for nine years, and had at least one child with him, and had waited a long time for his downfall to seek legal redress. Falcos died in Rome in 1226, where he pleaded with the pope to return both his wife and his estate to him.

No matter how legally disadvantaged, women still played an important, sometimes dominant, role in the life of the castle. When the lord went out to the king's court, fought in a war, joined the crusaders, or went on a pilgrimage, the women were responsible for the running of the estate, directing the servants in their work, and making decisions on financial and legal matters. The ease with which the mistresses of the castle performed these functions suggests that they were no strangers to them, which means that they were to some extent involved in the management of the castle when the lord was at home. In addition to helping to supervise the household servants and the children's nursemaids, the lord's wives were also involved in hosting and entertaining officials, knights, clergy, and other visitors to the castle. Robert. Robert Grosseteste advises the Countess of Lincoln to treat her guests "promptly, courteously, and cheerfully," and to make arrangements "to accommodate and serve them courteously."

The lower legal status did not reduce women to voiceless shadows. Satirists of the time in fact portrayed the women as rapacious and combative. The famous Parisian preacher, Jacques de Jacques de Vertrieu, the famous Parisian preacher. In one of his sermons, the famous Parisian preacher Jacques de Vitry told the story of a man who had a wife:

"On the contrary, she had always contradicted his commands, and received the guests he asked for in a rude manner. One day he invited some guests to dine with him and had the table placed in the garden near a stream. His wife sat with her back to the stream, at some distance from the table, and looked coldly at her guests. Her husband said, 'Be happy with the guests and move closer to the table.' Instead, she moved her chair farther away from the table and closer to the creek behind her. When her husband saw this, he said in annoyance, 'Move your chair closer to the table.' She jerked the chair further back and it fell into the river and drowned. His husband jumped into a boat and propped it up with a long pole to get to his wife, but went upstream. The man at the table asked him why he had gone upstream instead of downstream to find his wife, to which he replied, 'Don't you know that my wife has always done the opposite of everyone else, and never walks straight?' I am convinced that she must have gone upstream against the current instead of downstream like the others.'"

Matthew. An incident in 1252 recounted by Parris provides us with a portrait of women in the Middle World. She was able to assert her rights in the face of even an intimidating adversary like a king. Isabella, countess of Arundel, went to King Henry III to protest the king's possession of a wardship. The king had a small portion of this guardianship, while Isabella had a large portion. The countess, "though a woman" (in the words of Matthew Parris), confronted the king about the fact that the king had a small part of the guardianship and Isabella had a large part of it. Parris), questioned, "Your Majesty, why do you turn your face away from justice? People cannot get justice in your court nowadays. You were appointed to be the mediator between God and us, but you have not governed yourself nor us ... and, what is more, you know neither fear nor shame, oppressing the nobles of the kingdom in every way." The king said sarcastically, "What are you talking about, Countess? Have the nobles of England authorized you as their spokesman and lawyer? Is it because you are so eloquent?" The Countess replied, "Absolutely not, Your Majesty, it was you who gave us the Writ of Permission (Magna Carta), which your father granted to us, and which you agreed and swore to faithfully observe and not to violate ... even though I'm a woman, and I, and all of us, as your natural and faithful subjects, sued you before a fearful Judge, who can rule on all people in the world, I and all of us, as your natural and faithful subjects, prosecute you before a fearful judge who can judge all the people of the world. Heaven and earth may be our witnesses, for you have done us injustice, though we have committed no sin against you. May God, the God of vengeance, come and redress my wrongs. "The king was dumbfounded by these words. According to Matthew's account, "The countess went straight home without the king's permission - or even her asking him for permission at all."

Despite the constraints of feudal law, a woman was occasionally able to arrange her own marriage. Isabelle of Angouleme, the widow of King John, found an opportunity to contract a second marriage in her favor (or in love, at any rate). She seized the opportunity to replace her ten-year-old daughter Joan, who had been engaged to the man for six years. Isabel writes to her "dearest son", King Henry III, from Angleme (where she had gone to take responsibility for the county):

"We hereby inform you that the Duke of La Marche ... the father of the bridegroom, who died in the Crusades ... has been taken to the throne ... and is now in his place ... and is now in his place. Crusades) ... has departed this life, and that Hugh de Lusignan (Hugh de Lusignan) ... is dead. Hugh de Lusignan, son of the Duke of La Marche, is thus left alone and without an heir ... his friends will not allow him to be united with our daughter by a formal legal marriage, as she is too young. They advised him to seek an heir quickly. It was suggested that he should find a wife in France. If that were the case, all your lands in Poitiers and Gasconay would be lost, as would ours. As it was seen that such a marriage would lead to great danger, and as we could not get the advice of your counselor ... we have therefore contracted a marriage with the said Eudes, as our lord and husband. We do this more with your interest in mind than only our own, as God can testify. We therefore beseech you, our dear son ... since this can be done to the best advantage of you and your lands, to return what we are entitled to, viz. the lands of Niort, Exeter, and Rockingham, and what our late husband, your father, bequeathed to us in the sum of 3,500 marks."

Isabel's dowry and inheritance were not readily available, and thus Henry refused to relinquish them until Johan's return to England, when Johan was still under the guardianship of Ramage. But Isabel also refused to give up her land and money until Johan received them. Under pressure from the Pope, Isabel and Eudes eventually surrendered Johan. Johan later married Alexander, King of Scotland. But Henry, Isabel, and Eudes fought over those possessions for many more years.

Chronicler Audricus Vitalis (1896-1945), who wrote the chronicles, said that the story was not a "good one" but a "good one. Ordericus Vitalis recounts another shrew:

"The senses of the Duke of Evreux (count of Evreux) were naturally both somewhat weak and attenuated by age. He trusts somewhat too much in the abilities of his wife, leaving the administration of his domain entirely in her hands. The Duchess of Helvise was noted for her intelligence and beauty. She was the tallest woman in the whole county of Everest, and of noble birth ... she ignored the advice of the nobles under her husband, preferring to act according to her own ideas and wishes. She has often resorted to bold measures in political affairs, and is ready to be involved in recklessness."

Many medieval women showed great political talent. Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, presided over one of the most important Italian feudal states of the eleventh century, sided with the Pope against the Emperor Henry IV, and was decisively engaged in the greatest political struggle of the age, which made the castle of Carnossa, which belonged to her, a resounding name in the Western tongue. The Blanche of Castile ruled France for a quarter of a century in the thirteenth century. In England, the wives of William the Conqueror, Henry I and Henry II served as regents in their husbands' absence.

Despite being in a vulnerable position in a militarized society, however, women not only defended castles under siege, but in fact led troops into battle. Long before the time of Joan of Arc, women wore armor and rode into battle. Matilda, the granddaughter of William the Conqueror, was known as Empress Matilda because she had married the German Emperor Henry V in an earlier marriage. Matilda had personally led troops against her relative Stephen of Blois in England's twelfth-century civil wars. According to the author of the Deeds of Stephen (who was hostile to Matilda), Matilda, after her temporary victory, "immediately behaved with the utmost haughtiness, and not with the modest step and look which is proper to a noblewoman. She began to walk, speak, and do things in a manner more raw and unseemly than before ... began to be arbitrary, or headstrong, in all that she did." "Stephen's Acts" goes on to describe Matilda's behavior at Winchester, when the King of Scotland, the Bishop of Winchester, and her brother, the Earl of Gloucester, "all the important men of the kingdom," as well as part of her retinue, came before her and bent their legs in supplication. Bending their legs to plead with her. Instead of rising politely to greet them and grant their requests, she sent them away rudely, refusing to listen to them. She then marched to London with a large army. According to historians, when the citizens of London came to welcome her, she sent for the richest of them, demanding "a large sum of money, without even the courtesy of a word, and with a tone of command." When the citizens protested, she became furious.

Then Matilda's luck turned and she was besieged in Oxford Castle. Again she showed bravery:

"She left the castle at night, with three thoughtful knights following her. With great effort herself and her companions traveled six miles on foot through icy weather (all the ground was white from a very heavy snowfall, and a thick layer of ice had formed on the water). She crossed a body of water without getting her clothes or feet wet. That body of water flooded over the heads of the king (Stephen) and his men as they set out to attack the castle. She also passed unnoticed through the king's sentry post, where the sound of loud trumpets and the loud calls of the people broke the silence of the night sky. What a clear example of miracle all this was!"

At one point in the struggle, Queen Matilda was pitted against another Matilda, Stephen's wife. The latter Matilda was "a cunning woman of manly firmness of character," who at one time attacked London with an army, ordering them to "plunder and set fire to the environs of the city, and to ravage the places with violence and the sword."

In the thirteenth century, a man named Dan. Nicholas. Della. Dame Nicolaa de la Haye was also involved in a military struggle. She was the widow of the sheriff of Lincolnshire and, in the words of the chronicler, an "energetic old woman". After the death of King John, she commanded the defense of Lincoln Castle, a loyalist castle, against the armies of Prince Louis of France and the rebellious English nobility, holding off every attack until William Marshall brought reinforcements to relieve them. Marshall brought reinforcements to relieve the siege.

Eleanor, the daughter-in-law of Empress Matilda, was one of the greatest examples of boldness and independence, the heiress of the vast province of Aquitaine in the south of France. Eleanor's first marriage to Louis VII of France was terminated by her affair with Raymond of Antioch in the Holy Land. However, after the scandal Elena did not go to a convent at all, but married Matilda's son, Henry II, who took the English throne two years later. Elena became actively involved in political affairs, encouraging her sons to rebel against their father, until an enraged Henry had him imprisoned at Salisbury Castile. (Henry sent William of Chepstow in 1183. Marshall there to release her.) After Henry's death, she traveled back and forth between cities and castles in England and France, presiding over court meetings. At the age of eighty, she also played a decisive role in the struggle between her grandson Arthur and son John for the English throne.

Elena's hometown, the French department of Aquitaine, was the birthplace of the troubadours' verse. These troubadours were the founders of the Western poetic tradition. Elena's grandfather, Duke William IV of Aquitaine, was one of the earliest troubadours, whose work still survives today. Elena herself played a role in spreading troubadour psalmody into northern France and England. Elena's daughter by her first marriage, Marie de... Marie de Champagne. Marie de Champagne, Elena's daughter by her first marriage, was also a protector of the poets, especially the famous Chrysienne de Champagne. Chretien de Trois. Chretien de Troyes, who wrote the Lancelot-Guinevere romance. The court of Mary of Troyes produced a work of great influence in aristocratic circles: a work by Andrias Capellanas, who was the author of the Lancelot-Guinevere romance. On Love" by Andreas Capellanus. This text, which quotes extensively from the works of Ovid (the Roman writer), gives us an insight into the behavior, the moral character, the conversations and the content of the thoughts of aristocratic women at the height of the Middle Ages, and shows a maturity and wisdom in the women of that time that is very different from that portrayed in the legendary stories. In those stories, women were disenfranchised pawns of a spoiled gender and legal system.

The essay "On Love" is summarized in a letter purportedly written by Duchess Marie to Andreas. In the letter, Mary answers the question of whether there is true love in marriage:

"We declare and firmly believe that love is incapable of exerting its power between two married people. For lovers freely give each other everything, not out of compulsion or necessity, but those who marry are obliged by duty to accept each other's wishes, and cannot refuse each other any request.

In addition, if a husband enjoys the embrace of his wife as a lover does, his honor is not enhanced. For on the one hand the worth of character of either party cannot grow, and on the other hand they appear to possess nothing more than what they are already entitled to.

We say this for another reason, for one of the aphorisms of love teaches us that no woman, even if she is married, can be honored with the King of Love unless she is seen to join in the service of Eros Himself, a service which is outside the bonds of marriage. But another rule of love teaches us that no woman can love two men at the same time. It stands to reason, therefore, that Eros does not recognize any right on his part between husband and wife.

But there is another assertion that seems to be at odds with this, that no real jealousy exists between them. And without jealousy there would be no real love to speak of, for according to Eros' own rule "A man without jealousy is without love."

There is a chapter in "On Love" which cites a number of "Love cases". These love cases are said to have been tried in the "love courts" of the ladies of Elena and Mary's court and of other noblewomen - litigious gatherings that are now regarded as mere products of the elegant imagination:

"A certain lady had a very suitable lover, but she had no love at all. A lady has a suitable lover, but she later marries another noble man, though not for her own reasons. She avoided that lover as much as she could after her marriage, refusing his customary caresses. Lady Ermengarde of Narbonne, however, points out the bad character of the lady in question in these words: 'A marriage contracted later does not naturally exclude an earlier love, unless the woman has completely renounced that love, and has resolved not to love the first lover any more! ...'

Another woman was married, but now divorced from her husband. Her ex-husband fervently wants her love. In response to this case, Ms. Emengard replied, 'If two people get married and then in any case get divorced, we consider their love for each other to be evil ...'

There was a knight who fell in love with a woman who fell in love with another, but the knight got the hope of such a love - from her! But the knight took from her the hope of such love - that if the lady should ever lose the love of her loved one for her, she would give her love to the knight without question. Soon after, the lady married her lover. The knight then asked the lady to give him the promised fruit of her hope, but she flatly refused, saying that she had not yet lost the love of her lover. In response to this matter, the queen gave the following decision: 'We dare not oppose the opinion of the Duchess of Champagne, according to whose ruling love exerts no power between husbands and wives.' We therefore suggest that the lady should give the knight the love she promised ...'

The Duchess of Champagne was also asked what kind of gifts it was proper for ladies to receive from their lovers. The Duchess replied to the man who had asked the question, 'A woman in love is free to receive from her lover as a souvenir the following gifts: a handkerchief, a band for binding her hair, a wreath of gold or silver, a brooch, a mirror, a belt, a wallet, a tasseled ribbon, a comb, a cuff, gloves, a ring, a compact, a painting, a washbasin, a handkerchief, a cuff, a glove, a ring, a contract. a picture, a washbasin, a small plate, a tray, a small flag ... and any other small gift that can be of use to the individual, or that looks nice, or that reminds her of her lover, as long as the acceptance of the gift saves her from greed.

'But ... if a woman receives a ring as a token from a lover, she should wear it on the little thumb of her left hand, and she should always hide the diamond from the ring on the inward side of her hand. For the left hand is usually free from dishonesty and shame, and a man's life and death are said to depend more on his little thumb, and because all lovers are obliged to keep their love secret. By the same token, if they correspond with each other, they should avoid signing their names. Moreover, if for whatever reason lovers are brought into the court of ladies, their identity should never be told to the judge, and the case should be submitted anonymously. Nor should they seal their letters with their own seals, unless they happen to have seals of secrecy known only to themselves and their intimate friends.'"

If "courtly love," a term coined much later, was the literary ideal of the Middle Ages, in practice, a firmly established male double standard governed such things as adultery. The Church condemned adultery for both men and women, but it was common for kings, counts, nobles, and knights to have lovers and numerous illegitimate children. (Henry I had more than twenty illegitimate children, and John was known to have five.) Women's adultery was a different matter, and a cheating wife was usually shamed and abandoned, while her lover was cut off in pieces or put to death. This sort of thing wasn't about morality but about a man's honor. Adultery with the wife of a superior feudal lord was seen as treachery. During the reign of Philip the Fair (King Philip IV of France), two noblemen accused of committing adultery with the wife of the king's son were castrated, dragged behind horses to the gallows, and hanged because they were "not only adulterers, but also the most wicked of their masters". but the most wicked traitors to their masters."

Matthew. Parris records two cases that depict the subtleties of honor (while honor here is exclusively male). A man named Godfrey . Godfrey de. A knight named Godfrey de Miller enters another knight's house "with the intention of sleeping with his daughter," but he is caught, and the girl acquiesces, "for she feared to be looked upon as the lover of a married man," and is tortured. "Miller was tortured and castrated. The perpetrators, including the girl's father, were sentenced to exile and confiscation of property. Despite the ambiguity of the evidence - the girl was most likely trying to protect herself from the assault - Matthew Parris did not hesitate to claim that the girl had been abused. Matthew Parris did not hesitate to claim that the girl was a "whore" and an "adulterer," and that the knight's punishment was "a most atrocious act ... an inhuman and cruel sin. sin." Meanwhile, "a certain handsome clergyman, the head of a wealthy church," was known far and wide for his generosity and hospitality, surpassing all the knights in the neighborhood - a quality universally honored in aristocratic circles. He was similarly punished for the same behavior. Like Matthew Parris, the king was also very proud of this man. Like Matthew Paris, the king was y saddened by the cleric's misfortune, and he decreed that no one should be castrated for adultery, but only the cuckolded husband, whose honor was sacred and inviolable, unlike that of the lady's father, family, and herself. The king had this order publicly proclaimed into law.