Glossary

Actors

The contract registers in the database refer to those persons who acted as negotiating parties in the contract as actors for the bride or groom. This is not a source term, but rather a descriptive category that is used systematically in the database. Dynastic marriage contracts were usually not negotiated and concluded directly between the persons who were to enter into marriage, but between their parents - especially their fathers - or, if they were no longer alive, other predominantly male relatives and legal guardians. One example is the marriage contract between England and Spain in 1503: the contract sealed the future marriage of Henry, Prince of Wales (1491–1547), who later reigned as King Henry VIII from 1509 until his death, to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon (1485–1536). She was a member of the Castilian-Aragonese ruling house of Trastámara and was the widow of Henry’s older brother Arthur. The contract was negotiated by Henry’s father, Henry VII, and Catherine’s parents, Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. They are accordingly listed in the register as actors for the bride and groom. In the treaties themselves, the actors are sometimes referred to as principals (cf. e.g. the Brandenburg-France marriage treaty of 1517). Although Isabella of Castile acted as an equal partner to her husband on behalf of her daughter, the role of mothers in the process of dynastic marriages was often limited to arranging the marriage. The actual negotiations were usually conducted by professional diplomats acting as representatives of the dynasties involved. Although these negotiators are often mentioned by name in the contracts, they are not listed in the registers as actors for the bride and groom, as they acted on behalf of the princely contracting parties. Parents, relatives, or guardians negotiating and concluding marriage contracts for the bride and groom was by no means limited to cases in which the future spouses themselves had not yet reached the age of majority. Princesses in particular did not usually negotiate on their own behalf. Male members of early modern princely houses were able to do so primarily if they were the reigning head of their dynastic line (examples are the marriage contracts between Scotland and Denmark in 1589 and France and Spain in 1659).

Literature:

Büttner/Haas 2019
Berg 2013, p. 35-37
Loades 2009, p. 17-20
Marra 2007, p. 64
Scarisbrick 2011, p. 7-9
Schönpflug 2013, p. 160, 176
Walther 2011, p. 68, 83-84
Complete bibliographic references

Apanage

The apanage refers to the allowance granted by the ruling prince to family members to secure their livelihood. The apanage could consist of financial payments, payments in kind, and/or the granting of titles. This allowance was intended to ensure that sons who were not entitled to rule (primogeniture) could maintain a lifestyle appropriate to their status. Usually, the appanage, whatever its form, was tied to the individual person. At most, it could be inherited in the direct male line. If the person to whom the appanage was granted was female, she usually lost her right to receive the allowance upon marriage. Land granted remained under the sovereignty of the ruling prince. The term appanage itself only came into use in the 16th/17th century, although appanage had been practiced for much longer. Other terms used are: pension, Erbgebührnis, etc.

Literature:

Schnettger 2019
Richard/Maksimović 1980
Complete bibliographic references

Brautschatz

In literature, the term Brautschatz has various meanings. Ennen, for example, defines it as all property that the bride brought into the marriage in the form of money, annuities, and real estate, but which, from a legal point of view, was not part of the dowry. Klapisch-Zuber uses Brautschatz as a general category for dowry and trousseau. Zedler’s Universal Lexicon (18th century) also lists Brautschatz as a synonym for Heiratsgut. In the early modern dynastic marriage contracts evaluated for the database, the term can be found in a similar range of meanings, without it being possible to define it precisely. Particularly in German-language contracts, the term was sometimes used synonymously with the terms dowry (cf. e.g., the contract between Hesse and Saxony in 1541 and between Denmark and Mecklenburg-Güstrow in 1572). In some cases, however, the term Brautschatz in early modern marriage contracts can be understood to mean a monetary gift or gift of valuables from the groom or his family to the bride (cf. Bejschowetz-Iserhoht). The term is also used in this sense in various contract records in the database, although the distinction between it and the morning gift is not always clear. Due to the unclear meaning of the term in detail, which makes a consistent translation as, for example, dowry impossible, the German term is used throughout.

Literature:

Bejschowetz-Iserhoht 1999, p. 20
Ennen 1999, p. 149
Klapisch-Zuber 1995, p. 81-93
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 12, col. 1940
Complete bibliographic references

Bridal Jewels

Numerous dynastic marriage contracts from the early modern period, which were evaluated for the database, regulate gifts of jewelry, ‘Kleinodien’, and valuables to brides. These gifts could be made by the bride’s family as well as by the groom or his family. In some cases, gifts of jewelry were also part of the trousseau (Aussteuer). When bridal jewelry is mentioned as a subject of the contract in the database, this usually refers to such gifts or describes the jewelry that was given. There may be some overlap in meaning with dowry and bridal jewelry. In the German version of the database, the term corresponds to the two terms ‘Brautschmuck” and ‘Brautjuwelen’, which cannot be clearly distinguished from one another.

Literature:

Bastl 2000, p. 71-72
Walther 2011, p. 174
Becker 2015, p. 195-196
Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 270-271
Complete bibliographic references

Consummation

Whenever the English version of the database uses the term ‘consummation of marriage’, it is usually a translation of the German legal term ‘Beilager’. According to traditional understanding, a formally concluded marriage only became final through physical consummation, i.e., the consummation of sexual intercourse by the married couple. Within the framework of the Beilager as a formal wedding rite, the sexual union of the bride and groom was symbolically indicated on the one hand, and on the other hand, usually actually consummated. Failure to consummate the marriage during the Beilager could lead to complaints and conflicts under certain circumstances, but according to early modern understanding, symbolic consummation was sufficient to guarantee the legal validity of the marriage. The Beilager was an integral part of the wedding celebrations and usually took place at the end of the first day. It began with the newlyweds climbing into bed together in the presence of all the wedding guests or the entire court. The Beilager was followed by the wedding night, which ended the next morning with the presentation of the morning gift to the bride. The regulation of the Beilager was a common part of dynastic marriage contracts, as was the determination of the morning gift to be presented afterwards.

Literature:

Buchholz 2008, Sp. 1196-1197
Gersmann 2019
Hillebrand 1996, p. 79-82
Schröter 1991
Walther 2011, p. 82-83, 225
Complete bibliographic references

Deeds concerning matrimonial property

The assurance of a dowry, a donatio propter nuptias, and especially a dower by the bride’s or groom’s family was called a “Verschreibung” within german marriage contracts. In Electoral Saxony and some other dynasties, the practice of adding separate supplementary contracts to the actual marriage contract became common in the 16th century. These additional contracts often contained the “Verschreibung” of the dowry, the dower, or the donatio propter nuptias and are referred to in the English translation of the Daenbank as deeds concerning the dowry, etc. Examples of such separate contracts have been preserved in the context of electoral Brandenburg marriage contracts (e.g., Bestand I. HA Rep. 78, No. 24 in Geheimen Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz).

Literature:

Essegern 2007, p. 27
Jilge 2016, p. 54-55
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 12, col. 1956
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 47, col. 1724-1725
Complete bibliographic references

Dissolution

In the context of dynastic marriage contracts in the early modern period, the dissolution of a marriage did not usually refer to divorce, but rather to the dissolution of the marriage due to the death of one of the spouses. In a marriage contract between royal houses, it would have been inappropriate from both a normative and political perspective to address the possibility of a future divorce. Dynastic marriage contracts often suggested the intention to establish ‘eternal’ alliances and lasting peace (cf. the marriage contracts between France and England in 1581 and Portugal and Austria in 1708). Although research has shown that the negotiating parties did not actually have comprehensive plans for future alliance structures or peace arrangements in mind when entering into dynastic marriages, mentioning possible divorces in the contracts would have virtually anticipated future conflicts and would probably have been counterproductive. Moreover, according to canon law and the religious understanding, marriage was considered a divinely ordained, potentially irrevocable union. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) confirmed the legal opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that marriage was a sacrament and subject to the principle of absolute indissolubility; only the death of a spouse could dissolve the lawful marital union. This meant that marriages could only be dissolved if the ecclesiastical court recognized a marriage as invalid and annulled it. In the course of the Reformation, Protestant ideas about marriage diverged from the Catholic norm, with the sacramental nature of marriage in particular now being disputed. Nevertheless, most reformers only considered divorce to be legitimate in certain severe cases, and the legal options for dissolving a marriage remained strictly limited.

Literature:

Buchholz 2008
Kampmann 2017, p. 133-135
Lutz 2006, p. 133-147
Scholz-Löhning 2019
Van Dülmen 2005, p. 178-183
Complete bibliographic references

Dispensation

It is not uncommon for dynastic marriage contracts to mention the obtaining of papal dispensations prior to the marriage due to the particularly close relationship between the bride and groom. Since princely marriages in the early modern period were primarily guided by political interests, it could seem advantageous to marry very close relatives. The House of Habsburg in particular is known for its intensive intra-dynastic marriage policy, which aimed to achieve stability and maintain power. However, marriages below a certain degree of kinship were subject to ecclesiastical marriage prohibitions and required special permission from the highest ecclesiastical authorities. Dispenses, as a legal instrument of canon law, could override the “binding nature of the norm for individual cases” (Germann). Catholic noble houses had to apply to the Pope for dispensation from marriages between relatives. As Vocelka notes, European ruling families and dynasties were so closely related that “almost every marriage in Catholic Europe […] had to be specifically permitted by the Pope with a dispensation because of the close relationship between the spouses.” The Reformation further limited the choice of marriage partners, as there were high hurdles for interdenominational marriages between Catholic and Protestant partners. In contrast to the Catholic dynasties, Protestant princes who wanted to enable close marriages for themselves or their relatives had the advantage of being both sovereigns and heads of their respective regional churches.

Literature:

Germann 2016
Heimann 2020, p. 86
Lanzinger 2019b
Schilling 2007, p. 148
Vocelka 2020, p. 77
Walther 2011, p. 66-67
Complete bibliographic references

Donatio propter nuptias

The donatio propter nuptias was a common payment made by the groom or his family to the bride. The donatio propter nuptias was often paid in cash, but could also be made, for example, by handing over jewellery and gems of equivalent value to the dowry. This was stipulated, for example, in the marriage treaties between Spain and France in 1721 and between France and Baden-Baden in 1724. In general, the dowry and donatio propter nuptias could also take the form of territorial gifts or payments in kind. According to Zedler’s Universal Lexicon (18th century), equality between dowry and donatio propter nuptias was required by law, but was not always observed in practice. However, according to Zedler, the granting of the donatio propter nuptias per se was not legally binding. In dynastic marriage contracts of the early modern period, it was nevertheless the rule that the payment of a donatio propter nuptias was agreed upon and its value was set in exact correspondence to the dowry sum. Exceptions were sometimes made when there were significant differences in rank (cf. Büttner/Haas, for example). Very high dowries, which required a correspondingly high donatio propter nuptias, could thus become an obstacle to marriage in practice for less financially powerful noble houses or lead to considerable controversy in marriage negotiations. The purpose of the donatio propter nuptias was to supplement the dowry provided by the bride or her family, to increase the total value of the marriage settlement, and to contribute to the long-term support of the wife in the event of her widowhood. To this purpose, the donatio propter nuptias was invested together with the dowry in the husband’s estates in order to generate interest income. This was also normally regulated in dynastic marriage contracts. In the event of the husband’s premature death, the marriage contracts usually regulated the use of the donatio propter nuptias for the purpose of providing for the widow, if there were no children from the marriage who were still alive at the time and who might therefore have had a priority claim to the donatio propter nuptias. If the widow also died, it was usually agreed that the donatio propter nuptias would revert to the husband’s family.

Literature:

Brauneder 1998, col. 1347-1348
Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 274-275
Essegern 2003, p. 133
Lanzinger 2019a
Schnettger 2016, S. 121
Schödl 2007, p. 85, 136-137
Spieß 2003, p. 96-97
Walther 2011, p. 68, 82
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 55, col. 2155-2157
Complete bibliographic references

Dower

The dower was a financial contribution that had to be provided by the groom or his family in the course of a marriage and was intended to secure the bride’s maintenance in widowhood. Germanic law originally recognized two types of dower: the dower could be handed over “to the previous guardian of the woman,” usually the bride’s father, or to the bride herself (Schulze). The second type is found in dynastic marriage contracts of the early modern period, which became predominant from the 8th century onwards with the support of the church and significantly strengthened the economic and legal position of widows. However, in marriage contracts between princely houses, it was not uncommon for the bride’s family to be granted the right of disposal over her dower for the period after her death until the dowry had been repaid and, if required, the trousseau had been refunded by the husband or his heirs. The widow’s dower served as the basis for the widow’s maintenance and was therefore usually the subject of detailed marital contract provisions. These provisions did not only concern the allocation of the dower, but also inheritance issues and, not uncommon, provisions in the event of the widow remarrying. If a marital contract did not contain any such provisions, a separate dower deed was customary. The dower often consisted of chattels, i.e., movable property such as household goods, livestock, etc., and real estate. In dynastic marriage contracts, the focus was mainly on immovable widow’s property, the associated rights (see also regalia), and the income that could be generated from its administration. Regular items in dower agreements in marriage contracts also included the furnishing and maintenance of the widow’s residence as the place of residence and accommodation of the noble widow. The administration of the widow’s dower, i.e., the exercise of administrative rights and jurisdiction over the widow’s property, was one of the essential “forms of legitimate exercise of power by noble women” (Carius). The actual guarantee of a widow’s provision in accordance with her status determined to a considerable extent the scope of action available to noble widows. Although the conventions of the European high nobility generally stipulated that widows should retire to their dower after the death of their husbands, this was by no means mandatory. Sometimes widows remained involved in courtly representation or educational tasks, and sometimes they even continued to participate in the sovereign’s government, even though there were adult male heirs of the deceased prince.

Literature:

Braun 2018, p. 26-37
Carius 2015, p. 203
Essegern 2007, p. 231-232
Hufschmidt 2003, p. 357
Pieper 2019, p. 257
Puppel 2004, p. 136-137
Schönpflug 2013, p. 108-109
Schulze 1998
Spieß 2003, p. 105-106
Complete bibliographic references

Dowry

The term dowry is the English translation of the terms Mitgift, Ehegeld, and Heiratsgut used in the German version of the database. In the early modern period, marriage signified, in terms of marital property law, the transfer of the bride into the husband’s family, which thereby assumed responsibility for her future care. However, both families provided the financial and material basis for this by equipping the bride and groom with various marital assets. As a one-time gift from the bride’s side, a dowry was usually brought into the marriage. A dowry is defined as a financial gift to be paid by the bride’s family as part of the marriage. Under the heading “Mitgifft,” Zedler refers to the terms “Heuraths-Guth” and “Dos,” which were apparently more common in the German-speaking world and in early modern legal theory. According to the corresponding entries in the Universal Lexicon, these terms refer to a monetary gift or payment in kind in the form of real estate, which is given to the bride by her family in the context of the marriage and which goes to the husband or his father. If the wife dies without having children from the marriage, her family or next of kin have a legal right to the return of the dowry or marriage property (cf. reversion). In dynastic marriage contracts of the early modern period, the dowry usually took the form of a substantial monetary payment. The amount of this sum, which depended on social status, was negotiated before the marriage and recorded in the marriage contract. The groom’s family usually offset the dowry with a contribution of the same amount. As Pieper notes, “prestigious marriage projects occasionally failed due to the inability of the man’s side to match a high dowry.” After payment, the contractually agreed dowry, together with the counter-payment, was to be invested profitably in the husband’s estates in order to generate annual income and secure the widow’s maintenance. This was also regulated in detail in dynastic marriage contracts. Especially among the nobility, the dowry was also closely linked to family inheritance law and had the status of an anticipated inheritance. For this reason, in dynastic marriages, an explicit waiver of inheritance rights by the bride was often agreed upon in return for the dowry and included in the marriage contract. Exceptions were also often specified, e.g., in the event that the bride’s dynasty died out in the male line. Dynastic marriage contracts usually also regulated the reversion of the dowry and other marital property brought into the marriage.
The German term Heiratsgutsgut is translated as dowry in the database because it is often synonymous with Mitgift. In some cases, however, the term can also refer to all the goods brought in by the bride’s side, i.e., dowry and trousseau (cf. Walther; Zedler), or to all matrimonial property, including the contributions made by the groom’s family. In these cases, Heiratsgut is translated according to context.

Literature:

Bastl 2000, p. 50-53
Brauneder 2016b
Büttner/Haas 2019, 270-271
Lanzinger 2019a
Pieper 2019, p. 256, 357
Spieß 2003, p. 99
Walther 2011, p. 68, 72
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 7, col. 1342-1343
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 12, col. 1940-1956
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 21, col. 538
Complete bibliographic references

Dynastic marriage

In the estates-based society of early modern Europe, it was the norm for marriages to be concluded between members of the same social status group. This was particularly true for the (high) nobility, who married among themselves throughout Europe. Such princely or dynastic marriages were not usually ‘love matches’, but rather political and strategic alliances between royal houses. On the one hand, such marriages served to ‘transfer property, rank and status through the generations’ (Sikora) and thus to preserve the dynasty. On the other hand, marriages were one of the most important political instruments for interaction and the formation of dynastic kinship networks between European royal houses. In early modern Europe, dynastic marriages were an essential means of foreign relations, and marriageable princesses and princes were thus a central resource in European politics. Although marriages outside the proper class did occur, they carried considerable potential for intra-family conflict due to the importance of dynastic marriages for the security of the dynasty. The most prominent symbol of a comprehensive strategy and policy based primarily on dynastic marriages is undoubtedly the Habsburgs. To this day, the Austrian noble house has a reputation for having literally ‘married’ its way to a global empire during the early modern period – in accordance with the well-known saying: “Bella gerant alii: tu felix Austria, nube!” Here, marriage is contrasted with war as a strategy of dynastic politics and power expansion. It is undisputed among researchers that dynastic marriage policy had a considerable influence on war and peace in early modern Europe. However, there is disagreement as to whether dynastic marriage policy and the resulting succession problems must be regarded as a major cause of the notorious unrest of the early modern period, or whether dynastic marriages should be seen as an (often unsuccessful) attempt to achieve long-term alliances and, through them, peace, stability, and security. In contrast to these opposing positions, new research emphasizes that dynastic marriages were used to realize short- to medium-term dynastic interests rather than large-scale political plans. The aim was not so much to create comprehensive peace orders or systems of collective security, but rather dynastic “spaces of possibility” (Kampmann/Carl), which were extremely important insofar as they offered “options for rank elevation and expansion that could be realized on a case-by-case basis.” Dynastic marriage policy was inseparably linked to succession policy security concepts relating to one’s own dynasty. The importance of princely security thinking was also apparent in diplomatic practice: dynastic marriages followed certain patterns throughout Europe. It was not uncommon for lengthy preliminary approaches and marriage negotiations to take place beforehand. These were subject to strict rules and procedures and were usually conducted without public knowledge in order to minimize political risks, such as the failure of the marriage project and the resulting loss of reputation. If successful, they resulted in a formal marriage contract. Such contracts regulated not only the marriage itself and its financial and material aspects, but also the bride’s maintenance during the marriage, widow’s provision, and aspects of inheritance and succession law - both of which were central issues of dynastic security. For the bride and groom, marriage ultimately represented their entry into adulthood and the establishment of their own household. Legally speaking, wives remained under the guardianship of their husbands, although they held a thoroughly influential position in the hierarchy of the noble household. In terms of property law, the wife became part of her husband’s family, which meant that he and his family were responsible for her care from then on. However, by providing dowry and trousseau, the bride’s family contributed to the financial and material support of the wife and, if she became a widow, her widowhood. The other part was contributed by the groom’s family in the form of the morning gift and the prescription of a widow’s dower.

Literature:

Burkhardt 1997, p. 538-541
Büttner/Haas 2019
Delille 2007
Gersmann 2019
Haas 2017, p. 323-334
Kägler 2014
Kohler 1994
Kampmann 2017, p. 133-135
Kampmann/Carl 2021, p. 540-546
Kampmann/Mathieu 2019
Klecker 1997
Peters 2007, p. 121
Schönpflug 2010, p. 155-206
Sikora 2005
Vocelka 1976, p. 11-20
Walther 2011, p. 203
Weber 1981, p. 13-17
Complete bibliographic references

Endowment

In legal history, endowment refers to a gift of assets to a child from the father and/or mother in connection with the child’s marriage. Olechowski cites the bride’s trousseau and other financial provisions for sons as subcategories of endowment. The term is also used in this context in the contract records in the database and is often simply translated as “trousseau.”

Literature:

Olechowski 2008a
Complete bibliographic references

Life annuity

In legal history, a life annuity refers to a pension, i.e., a financial allowance, that is awarded to a person for life. Life annuity contracts have historically occurred in a wide variety of social and legal contexts and have always served as a form of provision for the future. In the context of dynastic marriage contracts, life annuities are usually mentioned as part of the bride’s maintenance during the marriage or widow’s pension. In the German version of the database, Leibrente is the corresponding term.

Literature:

Ogris 2016
Signori 2016
Walther 2011, p. 122-123
Complete bibliographic references

Life estate

Life estate is the English translation of the German term Leibgedinge in the English version of the database. Büttner/Haas define Leibgedinge as widow’s income, i.e. all monetary or material income that the widow earned from the widow’s estate, which was usually awarded to her in the marriage contract. In marriage contracts, however, the life estate often also refers to the estates and territories assigned as widow’s dower. This corresponds to the description in Zedler’s Universal Lexicon, according to which „Dotalium oder Dotarium, das Leibgut, Leibgeding, Leib-Zucht, Witthum, Hauben-Band, […] nichts anders“ sei, „als eine Verehrung sie bestehe in Lehen oder Eigenthum, welche der Mann oder seine Erben, der Frauen zur Vergeltung ihres Heurat-Guts verordnen, daß sie nach des Mannes Tod, so lange sie lebet, genüsset.“ Zedler emphasizes the customary law origin of the life estate , its initial emergence among the nobility, and its central importance for the provision of noble widows. Because of this function, the regulation of the life estate or dower was an essential aspect of dynastic marriage negotiations and marriage contracts. However, it also happened that the life estate was only determined in the course of the marriage or upon the death of the husband.
The term “life estate” is also used to translate the German term “Leibzucht.” According to the Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, the term “Leibzucht” is generally understood to mean a “right in rem to use another person’s property.” Leibzucht was a typical component of pre-modern legal culture and matrimonial property law (cf. Brauneder) both in the legal understanding of the German-speaking world and in English common law (here as life estate). When the term is used in the context of dynastic marriage contracts in the early modern period, it usually refers to the bride’s rights of use to the property that was contractually guaranteed to her by the groom or his family. However, Leibzucht, like Leibgedinge, could also refer to the property itself, the proceeds and income from which were intended to provide the wife with a standard of living befitting her status. Due to the similarity in meaning between the two terms, both are translated as “life estate.”

Literature:

Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 272
Ehmer 2019
Essegern 2007, p. 415-416
Essegern 2003, p. 116
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 7, col. 1353-1354
Complete bibliographic references

Marriage contract

In the early modern period, dynastic marriages were sometimes preceded by years of negotiations, which included the negotiation of marriage contracts between the royal houses involved. Marriage contracts were a written record of the originally oral marriage agreements and were not only common among the aristocracy, but also had a particularly important and widespread significance there. Dynastic marriage contracts were based on the legal framework of the house laws of the noble houses involved, but were themselves also house laws. They regulated all relevant aspects of matrimonial property law as well as personal and property law issues (Walther). Regular subjects of marriage negotiations and contracts also included procedural issues relating to the negotiations, the organization of the wedding celebration and consummation, the bride’s rank at her husband’s court, the position of the bride’s servants and court, and her maintenance during the marriage. Above all, however, they regulated the marital property for the maintenance of the bride after her widowhood, that is, the dowry, donatio propter nuptias, trousseau, morning gift, the dower, and the life estate, as well as its suspension, use, and inheritance (Büttner/Haas). Regulations concerning inheritance law and, in particular, the bride’s inheritance rights or renunciation of inheritance were considered particularly important because they touched on a central aspect of dynastic security: the aim was to prevent the groom’s family from claiming inheritance rights to the bride’s family’s lands. The rights of use of a widow from a foreign dynasty on her dower were also considered relevant to security. For the bride, these matrimonial property and inheritance regulations were important guarantees of economic independence as a widow and thus affected her personal social security. In interdenominational marriages, it was also necessary to regulate the religious practices of the spouse of a different denomination, which were usually strictly limited to the private sphere, and the religious education of the couple’s children.

Literature:

Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 271-274
Essegern 2003, p. 135
Gersmann 2019
Lanzinger 2010
Ruppel 2006, p. 211
Signori 2011, p. 90, 97-98
Walther 2011, p. 71-72
Complete bibliographic references

Matrimonial property

In the early modern period, matrimonial property was generally understood to mean all property, assets and other benefits and gifts intended to provide for and support the bride after her possible widowhood. Marital property was negotiated between the parties involved prior to the marriage and was also specified and quantified in dynastic marriage contracts. Marital property included the dowry, trousseau, donatio propter nuptias, morning gift, widow’s dower, and life estate. The value of the marital property was usually balanced in marriage contracts so that the families of the bride and groom contributed approximately equal shares. However, early modern matrimonial property law favored widows and widowers, with the result that they often brought considerable wealth from their first marriage into their second. This explains the noticeable differences between the bride’s dowry and the groom’s dowry that are sometimes found in non-aristocratic marriage contracts. In aristocratic marriages, however, the exchange of matrimonial property, also referred to in the literature as the exchange of gifts, served to establish symbolic reciprocity. Breaking this relationship of equality between the families involved meant a loss of prestige and honor for the party that committed the violation. In the German version of the database, the corresponding German terms are Ehegüter and Heiratsgut. The latter term can refer either to the property brought in by the bride’s family, i.e., dowry and trousseau (cf. Walther; Zedler), or to the sum of the bride’s family’s gifts and the property provided by the groom’s family, such as donatio propter nuptias, morning gift, dower, and life estate.

Literature:

Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 271-272
Köller 2015, p. 159-161
Langer-Ostrawsky 2010, S. 56
Schönpflug 2013, p. 23, p. 105-112
Complete bibliographic references

Morning gift

Since the Middle Ages, a morning gift (in Zedler Vol. 7 under “Donatio Morgengabae”) has been used to describe a payment under matrimonial property law. It is a gift or donation from the groom to the bride, which was to be given on the morning after the wedding night and was therefore linked to the consummation of the marriage. In early modern contract practice, there are also documented symbolic references to the connection between the morning gift and the bride’s virginity. The nature and extent of the morning gift were a regular subject of matrimonial contract regulations between princely houses. The morning gift agreed in the marriage contract could take various forms: monetary payments were possible, as were payments in kind in the form of jewelry. As Schönpflug notes, its value should correspond approximately to that of the trousseau. Together with other matrimonial property rights (e.g., donatio propter nuptias, life estate, or dower), the morning gift also served to provide for the wife after the death of her husband. Like other gifts to the bride, it could be invested in order to generate interest, thus providing an annual income. In terms of ownership, it remained beyond the husband’s reach. In medieval and early modern legal texts, it is not always possible to distinguish clearly between the morning gift, the donatio propter nuptias, and the life estate. In the early modern period, a greater differentiation between the various terms and benefits began to emerge. However, Brauneder and Wettlaufer suggest that during the Middle Ages, the donatio propter nuptias had already functionally replaced the morning gift as the groom’s central wedding gift to the bride with the aim of providing for her in widowhood. In some marriage contracts between German and French royal houses, the term “Morgengabe” is also found in French-language contract texts (cf. e.g. the marriage contracts between France and Baden-Baden in 1724 and France and Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg in 1728). Apparently, there was no directly corresponding French term that could have been used instead of the German word.

Literature:

Brauneder 2016c, col. 1629-1633
Brauneder 1973, p. 127-128
Essegern 2003, p. 119, 122
Schönpflug 2013, p. 108
Walther 2011, p. 72, 129
Wettlaufer 1999, p. 89-90
Van Dülmen 2005, p. 156
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 7, col. 1251
Zedler 1732-1750, vol. 21, col. 1639-1641
Complete bibliographic references

pactum confraternitatis

Various marriage contracts, which are available as registers in the database, mention a pactum confraternitatis. These are a special form of dynastic alliances that were formed by the participating noble houses with the aim of ensuring long-term continuity.A well-known example is the pactum confraternitatis between the Landgraves of Hesse and the Wettins, who ruled in Saxony. The alliance was formed in the 15th century and lasted for many generations. Marriages were a proven way of securing the continuation of such inheritance alliances between the houses involved.

Literature:

Kaiser 2019
Schlinker 2014
Complete bibliographic references

Pin Money

In many dynastic marriage contracts, the bride was granted a pin money of a certain amount. This pin money, was at the free disposal of the princely bride. It was used to maintain her court in accordance with her status and was therefore part of the husband’s obligation to provide for his wife during the marriage. The pin money could also come from interest income generated by the investment of, for example, the morning gift or the donatio propter nuptias. In the German version of the database, the corresponding German terms are Handgeld, Spielgeld, and Nadelgeld.

Literature:

Essegern 2007, p. 64
Forster 2010, p. 409-410
Ruppel 2006, p. 160
Schönpflug 2011, p. 139
Walther 2011, p. 143, 199, 211
Complete bibliographic references

Primogeniture

Primogeniture refers to the undivided succession to the throne by the eldest son of a ruler. In modern times, this form of inheritance became predominant, whereas in the Middle Ages, territories were more often divided among sons. Research has identified the introduction of the sole right of inheritance of the firstborn as a decisive step towards early modern state formation. However, recent studies on individual dynasties show that the establishment of primogeniture sometimes also promoted conflict and thus had a destabilizing effect on ruling houses.

Literature:

Brauneder 2021
Schilling 2019
Westphal 2016, p. 53
Complete bibliographic references

Proxy marriage

Marriage by proxy was referred to in dynastic marriage contracts in the early modern period when the parties agreed that the marriage should be concluded before the bride’s departure for the groom’s court, with a proxy acting on behalf of the groom. According to Vocelka/Heller, such marriages, which took place in the absence of one of the spouses, tended to have the character of an engagement until the marriage was consummated (cf. consummation), although researchers have also noted that the relationship between engagement and marriage in the Middle Ages and early modern period cannot be precisely determined (Büttner/Haas). The engagement was therefore the first step in a multi-stage process of marriage. In marriage contracts and in the German version of the database, the Latin term per procurationem is usually used.

Literature:

Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 270
Schönpflug 2013, p. 216-217
Vocelka/Heller 1998, p. 272
Complete bibliographic references

Regalia

Some marriage contracts in the database mention the transfer of regalia in the process of the donatio propter nuptias. Regalia refers in the broadest sense to all sovereign rights. A prince could grant his vassals the regalia he possessed, allowing them to exercise these rights in his name. Regalia were often linked to the possibility of financial income. It therefore also happened that the groom’s family specified in the marriage contract that the exercise of certain sovereign regalia on the widow’s estates should be reserved for the husband and his heirs.

Literature:

Essegern 2007, p. 28-29
Wegener 1990
Complete bibliographic references

Renunciation of inheritance

In the early modern period, renunciation of inheritance clauses were a regular and important part of dynastic marriage contracts. From the perspective of the dynasties involved - especially the bride’s side - such clauses were highly relevant to security: The bride’s comprehensive waiver of her own inheritance claims to her father’s, and possibly also her mother’s and brothers’ inheritance (also known as a Fräuleinverzicht was intended to prevent the groom’s family from making future claims to the territories and dominions of the bride’s family through inheritance law. Such arrangements naturally limited the possibilities of succession and the exercise of rulership for married women. The groom and his family confirmed the renunciation of inheritance in the marriage contracts. High dowry payments were a form of compensation for the renunciation of inheritance and its confirmation. Only the extinction of the bride’s family in the male line could justify a deviation from such a contractually regulated renunciation of inheritance (cf. for example the marriage contracts between Bavaria and Austria in 1546, Spain and the Electoral Palatinate in 1689, and Sweden and Prussia in 1744). At the highest levels of European politics, dynastic renunciation of inheritance arrangements in the context of princely marriages could have effects that went far beyond the interests of the dynasties involved.

Literature:

Hohkamp 2007, p. 155
Kampmann 2013, p. 48-49
Kampmann/Carl 2021, p. 545
Walter 2011, p. 82, 129-130, 337
Complete bibliographic references

Reversion

In early modern dynastic marriage contracts and the contract records in the database, the term “reversion” refers to the transfer of monetary assets and movable or immovable property back to the donor. The reversion of property, financial assets, and possessions that were given as a dowry, donatio propter nuptiasor granted as a dower in the course of the marriage was a common feature of many marriage contracts and was often carefully regulated. Regulations concerning the reversion of marital property were closely related to the inheritance regulations of dynastic marriage contracts. Traditional forms of such regulations, which were probably based on the right of reversion, or droit de retour in French, can be found in both Roman and Germanic law. The contracts usually named the bride’s father, the groom’s father, and their respective heirs as the recipients of the reverted property or possessions. However, the surviving spouse was often initially granted lifelong rights of use to the dowry or donatio propter nuptias, so that the reversion actually only took effect after his or her death. In the German version of the database, the corresponding German terms are Heimfall, Widerfall, and Rückfall.

Literature:

Brunner 1894, p. 676-735
Kluckhohn 1893, p. 40
Langer-Ostrawsky 2010, p. 69
Complete bibliographic references

Transfer

The transfer refers to the journey of the bride from her home court, where the marriage negotiations preferably took place, to the court of the groom or his family. Arranging the transfer of the bride was a common aspect of dynastic marriage negotiations or marriage contracts. Sometimes, travel routes and (unless the groom traveled personally to the bride’s parents’ court to conclude the marriage and ceremoniously escort the bride home) handover points were agreed upon, where the bride and her entourage were to be received by the groom. If the bride’s journey took her through the territories of uninvolved princely houses, it was also necessary to inform them. In some cases, considerable construction work was even undertaken to bring the roads and streets along the route up to a standard suitable for the transfer of the princely bride. The transfer could be particularly risky in times of war, which is why the marriage contract between Spain and the Electoral Palatinate from 1689 stipulated that there would be no ceremonial transfer due to the War of the Palatinate Succession (1688–1697) with France. Instead, the bride, Maria Anna of Palatinate-Neuburg, was to travel to Spain incognito.

Literature:

Büttner/Haas 2019, p. 271, 279-280, 283
Gepp/Lenk 2018, p. 180-181
Schönpflug 2013, p. 216-217
Walther 2011, p. 209
Complete bibliographic references

Trousseau

The term “trousseau” refers to property that the bride brought into the marital union for joint use in the course of the marriage. Together with the dowry, which was predominantly defined as monetary payments in dynastic marriage contracts, the trousseau was, according to numerous dynastic marriage contracts, part of the matrimonial property provided by the bride’s family. The type and scope of the matrimonial property was usually regulated in detail in such marriage contracts. In contrast to the dowry, the trousseau usually consisted of jewelry and valuables, as well as clothing and other textiles, household goods, and everyday items, which, however, could also be of considerable value due to the materials from which they were made. Dynastic marriage contracts from German-speaking countries, for example, often mention silver tableware as part of the trousseau. The type and amount of the trousseau always reflected the bride’s social status. Unlike the dowry, the trousseau did not serve to establish a permanent financial livelihood, but rather represented an initial endowment for the newly established household. While the groom was entitled to a dowry from the bride’s family, the bride was entitled to a trousseau from her own family.

Literature:

Brauneder 2019
Essegern 2003, p. 122, 133
Klapisch-Zuber 1995, p. 81
Lanzinger 2019a
Schönpflug 2013, p. 105-112
Olechowski 2008b
Complete bibliographic references