My daughter is like a commodity #movie #music #the Spanish princess
Many Sheldon | 104 k views
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_jFmbg1cb9Y
This is arguably a clip from The Spanish Princess. I look it up, yes, Georgie Henley is playing Margaret Tudor in The Spanish Princess, so, I look up Margaret Tudor to find out ...
First. She was born in 1489, on the 28th of November. She married by procuration in 1502 and in real life in 1503, her first husband being James IV of Scotland. As they were married on the 8th of August, she wasn't yet 14. So, for some modern minds, an ideal candidate to illustrate the idea that royal marriages were arranged and in practise forced marriages. Or indeed that girls marrying around 14 had arranged and in practise forced marriages.
Second, no. She was not shellshocked to find out that she was marrying the Scottish King in her teens. Her father had played around with this since she was 6 or somewhat earlier. In 1497, when she was 8, a truce was made with Scotland. Any raids around the border either ceased or ceaesed to be endorsed by the Scottish King. By the time she was twelve, when the marriage by procuration was concluded, she had known about the plan for long and England and Scotland had had a truce longer and better respected than that between Gaza and the Knesset.
Third, no again. This is what ticked me off. 1502 (I didn't know the exact year, but knew it was before the Deformation), England and Scotland were Catholic countries. Unlike a Jewish girl younger than 12 years and one day, a Catholic girl couldn't get married by the word of her father. She had a say. Yes, even if she were a teen. Or just twelve. It may seem outlandish to some modern parents to allow a twelve year old girl to take major decisions in her life, they would be imposed by dad and mum, and if for some reason marriage was there, they would conclude that marriage too was imposed, as in the daughter really having no say. Well, no. Sum of Theology, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 47, Article 3, I'm citing the authority and the explanation only first:
Article 3. Whether compulsory consent invalidates a marriage?
...
On the contrary, A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal. et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or compulsion enters in, it follows that where a person's consent is required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now mutual contract is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc.
Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore it cannot be the result of compulsory consent.
I answer that, The marriage bond is everlasting. Hence whatever is inconsistent with its perpetuity invalidates marriage. Now the fear which compels a constant man deprives the contract of its perpetuity, since its complete rescission can be demanded. Wherefore this compulsion by fear which influences a constant man, invalidates marriage, but not the other compulsion. Now a constant man is reckoned a virtuous man who, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 4), is a measure in all human actions.
However, some say that if there be consent although compulsory, the marriage is valid in conscience and in God's sight, but not in the eyes of the Church, who presumes that there was no inward consent on account of the fear. But this is of no account, because the Church should not presume a person to sin until it be proved; and he sinned if he said that he consented whereas he did not consent. Wherefore the Church presumes that he did consent, but judges this compulsory consent to be insufficient for a valid marriage.
I would further say, this is one of the things that Sts. Lucy and Barbara died for. In the Pagan Roman world, in theory also the marriage was contracted freely, but this was not quite respected. Indeed, the patron saint of Margaret Tudor, in whose Church she was baptised, was also a martyr for opposing an unwanted marriage, though in her case the adoptive parent was set aside by the Roman prefect.
St. Margaret Virgin and martyr; also called MARINA; belonged to Pisidian Antioch in Asia Minor, where her father was a pagan priest. Her mother dying soon after her birth, Margaret was nursed by a pious woman five or six leagues from Antioch. Having embraced Christianity and consecrated her virginity to God, she was disowned by her father and adopted by her nurse.
While she was one day engaged in watching the flocks of her mistress, a lustful Roman prefect named Olybrius caught sight of her, and attracted by her great beauty sought to make her his concubine or wife.
...
The Greek Church honors her under the name Marine on 13 July; the Latin, as Margaret on 20 July. ...
So, no. If Margaret Tudor had said "no, I won't" (or "just like that?") she would NOT have been met with "you knew that one day a husband would be chosen for you" ... the person seemingly mother of Margaret* is also off. Margaret's real mother was Elisabeth of York, and she died when Margaret was still married by procuration, in England, namely at age 37. A woman of 37 doesn't look that wrinkled. Even if one late pregnancy too many was what killed her (she died in puerperal fever, i e infection after childbirth, when her last daughter was 7 days old).
This may be the key why the marriage may have been consumed some time later, she was still in mourning after her mother had died. I am no expert on the case, I do not have the books written about her, but it sometimes happened that marriages concluded early in the age of the bride were delayed in consummation, and wikipedia notes the first child of Margaret as Queen consort of Scotland was born in 1507. However, it could also be, it took time for her to get pregnant, but if not, recall, her mother had died before she left England and she suffered from nosebleeds for a while.
Did Margaret ever want to divorce? Yes, but that was her second husband, as she was a widow. Part of it was, there was a rumour that James IV hadn't really died at Flodden, so she doubted she was really a widow. If she hadn't been, I suppose he was killed, that would have made her second marriage invalid.
So, the scene in The Spanish Princess seems to have been written, while the parents aren't absolute monsters, only about as monstrous as some parents to teens these days, by people who had watched too much Game of Thrones. It's not a documentary, not even about the War of the Roses. And while the moral dissonance from what are now conceived as human values, and rightly so as far as horror from forced marriage is concerned, is far less than in Game of Thrones, it's still an extra layer of unnecessary moral distance.
Before I end, there is one more part of the Aquinas article I want to share. Objection 2 and its answer:
Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 1), that which is done on account of mixed violence is more voluntary than involuntary. Now consent cannot be compelled except by mixed violence. Therefore it is not entirely involuntary, and consequently the marriage is valid.
...
Reply to Objection 2. Not any kind of voluntariness suffices for marriage: it must be completely voluntary, because it has to be perpetual; and consequently it is invalidated by violence of a mixed nature.
Annulments due to lack of consent happened, and were somewhat scandalous. The parents of Margaret Tudor would not have wanted to risk that.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Maundy Thursday
17.IV.2025
* It seems this was not Elisabeth of York, but someone who spoke to "the Spanish Princess" (Catherine of Aragon) as regent after the death of Elisabeth of York. My bad. It would be Lady Margaret Beaufort, the most important lady after Elisabeth of York died. However, as she died at only 66, I don't think even so she would be that wrinkled. It's not as if "51 then was" (overall) "like 75 now" as someone said, it's more like women dying younger because of untreated breast cancer and things.
No comments:
Post a Comment