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, S. 35-37
Loades 2009, S. 17-20
Marra 2007, S. 64
Scarisbrick 2011, S. 7-9
Schönpflug 2013, S. 160, 176
Walther 2011, S. 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

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, S. 133-135
Lutz 2006, S. 133-147
Scholz-Löhning 2019
Van Dülmen 2005, S. 178-183
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, S. 79-82
Schröter 1991
Walther 2011, S. 82-83, 225
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, S. 71-72
Walther 2011, S. 174
Becker 2015, S. 195-196
Büttner/Haas 2019, S. 270-271
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, S. 86
Lanzinger 2019b
Schilling 2007, S. 148
Vocelka 2020, S. 77
Walther 2011, S. 66-67
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, S. 538-541
Büttner/Haas 2019
Delille 2007
Gersmann 2019
Haas 2017, S. 323-334
Kägler 2014
Kohler 1994
Kampmann 2017, S. 133-135
Kampmann/Carl 2021, S. 540-546
Kampmann/Mathieu 2019
Klecker 1997
Peters 2007, S. 121
Schönpflug 2010, S. 155-206
Sikora 2005
Vocelka 1976, S. 11-20
Walther 2011, S. 203
Weber 1981, S. 13-17
Complete bibliographic references