'Marriage 
          and the Family'
          Dr Julie Coleman
          University of Leicester
          September, 2002
        
        Despite 
          a slight fall in the divorce rate in 2000, it is still commonly believed 
          that ours is an era of marriage breakdown and family instability. In 
          the United Kingdom in the year 2000, 267,961 marriages took place (including 
          my own, incidentally), and 141,135 ended in divorce -- not necessarily 
          the same ones. Thirty per cent of the marriages that ended in divorce 
          were not first marriages [1]. Even those without 
          the bitter experience of divorce behind them, sometimes prepare for 
          the possibility that it may be divorce and not death that parts them: 
          
         
          The greatest 
            problem in most divorces is deciding how to divide your property and 
            money. A few minutes planning upfront could save exhaustive hours, 
            headaches, and tremendous financial hardships, should your marriage 
            end (LegalZoom.Com). 
        
         The average 
          age for men at their first marriage was 30.5 years, and for women 28.2. 
          Nine per cent of adults over 16 were cohabiting [2] 
          . 
        But it's 
          not the average wedding that we hear most about. It's the celebrity 
          weddings and royal weddings that fill the newspapers and gossip magazines. 
          2000 saw Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt tie the knot, amidst huge expense 
          and security. Madonna and Guy Ritchie took the plunge in Scottish splendour 
          and seclusion. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones had an exclusive 
          deal with OK! magazine for their wedding photos. These are the weddings 
          that create everyone else's aspirations. 
        In 2000, 
          the average cost of a wedding was £11,500. Fortunately for them, 
          only about half of couples getting married had to pay for their own 
          weddings [3]. We all know what the essential ingredients 
          of a wedding are: the white dress and morning suits, the mother and 
          father of the bride, the bridesmaids and best man, the vicar, hymns, 
          flowers and confetti, the fancy cars and grand hotel, speeches, toasts, 
          and a bit of a bop with music that your most ancient auntie can dance 
          to. And there are plenty of businesses that are only too happy to help 
          with arranging it all. 
        Unfortunately, 
          a wedding leaves no archaeological remains. We can only look to documentary 
          evidence to find out what Anglo-Saxon weddings and marriage might have 
          been like. This seems to indicate that weddings were purely secular 
          affairs. A priest might attend to bless the union, but they were not 
          required to conduct a ceremony. The church did not involve itself with 
          marriage until the thirteenth century, which is when it first began 
          to be seen as a sacrament. Christine Fell writes: 
         
          The real-life 
            dividing-line between the marital and the non-marital union was not 
            always easy to draw in medieval England, where a private troth-plight, 
            even one conducted without witnesses, could be accepted as constituting 
            a valid (though possibly illegal) marriage. 
            (Christine Fell, Women in Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1984), p. 175.)
        
         We can 
          use the vocabulary of weddings to explore what they may have involved. 
          Gereord means both 'wedding' and 'feast'. Hæman means both 'to 
          get married' and 'to have sexual intercourse' (and etymologically, 'to 
          take home'). Perhaps a feast, followed by consummation, was what constituted 
          a socially-recognised marriage. The very fact that the word bryd (now 
          Modern English bride) could be used with reference both to a bride and 
          to a wife, indicates that the difference between the two was not as 
          important as it seems to us. 
        Most brides 
          and grooms would have had very little property of their own, and would, 
          therefore, have been entirely free to arrange their own unions. It seems 
          likely that most Anglo-Saxon partnerships were like modern cohabitations: 
          the couple involved decided that they would like to live together, and 
          did so, perhaps with a small party to mark the beginning of their association. 
          When they grew tired of living together, they separated. There was no 
          child-support agency to pursue absent fathers, but children would have 
          started contributing to their own keep considerably earlier than they 
          now do, and in an extended family the departure of one adult is not 
          so severe a burden to those remaining. 
        On the 
          other hand, where one or other party had property to protect, a document 
          was drawn up not unlike modern prenuptial agreements. The prospective 
          bridegroom and the father or guardian of the bride-to-be would meet 
          in advance to agree terms. This was a chance for a concerned parent 
          or guardian to ensure that his daughter would be provided for in event 
          of separation or widowhood. By stating at the outset what property a 
          woman brought to a marriage, her guardians could ensure that she retained 
          possession of it, as she was entitled to do. Women did have a say in 
          who they married -- legal codes throughout the Anglo-Saxon period forbid 
          marrying a woman off against her will -- but there is no need to forbid 
          what does not occur. There is, of course, a significant difference between 
          arranged and forced marriages, and both still occur in Britain today. 
          A government report estimated that about a thousand British women were 
          forced into marriage in 2000, but this represents only a fraction of 
          the number of arranged marriages. All the evidence suggests that arranged 
          marriages are less likely to end in divorce [4]. 
          
        The term 
          æ, meaning both 'law' and 'marriage', probably referred specifically 
          to Anglo-Saxon marriages, involving formal agreements and legal documents. 
          In the event of later separation, women would retain whatever property 
          they had before the marriage. Offspring belonged with the father's family, 
          and a wife returning to her own family would only have been able to 
          take away very young children, who would also have to be surrendered 
          at a later date. 
         As 
          today, it is the celebrity marriages that were most thoroughly documented 
          during the Anglo-Saxon period. Some of the odder marriages of the period 
          wouldn't be out of place on Jerry Springer. For example:
As 
          today, it is the celebrity marriages that were most thoroughly documented 
          during the Anglo-Saxon period. Some of the odder marriages of the period 
          wouldn't be out of place on Jerry Springer. For example: 
        'My 
          wife always ruins family holidays' 
         Eanfled, 
          a seventh-century queen of Northumbria, followed the teachings of the 
          Roman Church, as preached by the Kentish priest she brought to her new 
          home on marriage. King Oswy followed the practice of the Irish church. 
          No harm in that, you might think, but the two churches calculated Easter 
          differently, so when the king and his courtiers were celebrating Easter, 
          the queen and hers were still piously fasting. 
         
         'My 
          wife won't make love to me'
'My 
          wife won't make love to me'
          
          Queen Ætheldreda, another seventh-century queen of the Northumbrians, 
          managed to preserve her virginity through two marriages, despite her 
          second husband's attempts to persuade her with gifts of land and money. 
          
        'My 
          wife married the man who got me sacked'
         Emma and 
          Canute Emma of Normandy married Æthelred (now commonly known as 
          'the Unready'),  in 1002. Æthelred and his family fled to Normandy in 1013 when 
          he was overthrown by the Vikings. When Svein Forkbeard died in 1014, 
          Æthelred reigned again briefly, and was succeeded by his son, 
          Edmund Ironside, in 1016, who soon made a treaty with Svein's son, Canute, 
          by which England was divided. When Edmund died, later that same year, 
          Canute became king of all England. Now this is where it gets complicated. 
          In 1017, Emma married Canute. This was probably to protect the lives 
          of her children by Æthelred. From his point of view, it was a 
          useful way to gain access to the royal treasury.
 
          in 1002. Æthelred and his family fled to Normandy in 1013 when 
          he was overthrown by the Vikings. When Svein Forkbeard died in 1014, 
          Æthelred reigned again briefly, and was succeeded by his son, 
          Edmund Ironside, in 1016, who soon made a treaty with Svein's son, Canute, 
          by which England was divided. When Edmund died, later that same year, 
          Canute became king of all England. Now this is where it gets complicated. 
          In 1017, Emma married Canute. This was probably to protect the lives 
          of her children by Æthelred. From his point of view, it was a 
          useful way to gain access to the royal treasury. 
        'My 
          half-brothers want my job' 
         Emma and 
          Canute had a further three children, and the oldest, Hardicanute, was 
          the rightful heir to the throne. On Canute's death, Harold Harefoot, 
          Canute's son by his mistress became regent and later king of England. 
          Hardicanute succeeded after Harold's death in 1035. When Hardicanute 
          died, it was Emma's son by Æthelred who succeeded: Edward the 
          Confessor. 
        'My 
          husband locked me up because he hates my father'
         But that's 
          not the end of the story. Edward didn't actually want the throne at 
          all, as far as we can tell. He petitioned one of the most powerful men 
          in Britain, Earl Godwin, probably his brother's murderer, for aid in 
          escaping to Normandy. It seems that Godwin couldn't pass up on the opportunity 
          of having such a weak king, so he talked Edward into claiming the throne, 
          and promised to support him. There was only one tiny little condition: 
          Godwin wanted to be family, and his lovely daughter Edith the Fair would 
          be the perfect queen. Edward later banished Godwin and his sons (it's 
          a long story), and Edith was stripped of her jewels and confined to 
          a monastery. 
        But these 
          are dynastic marriages, contracted with little reference to the wishes 
          of those involved. What place did love play in normal Anglo-Saxon marriages? 
          
         
          According 
            to the myth, there came a moment somewhere in the eleventh or possibly 
            the twelfth century after Christ when, quite suddenly, romantic love 
            was invented. 
            (Ferdinand Mount, The Subversive Family. An Alternative History of 
            Love and Marriage (London, 1982), p. 98.) 
        
        If we look 
          at terms for spouses, it becomes clear that the marital relationship 
          was one of warm interdependence. Words like (ge)fera and (ge)maca mean 
          both 'spouse' and 'companion'. Geoc, meaning both 'spouse' and 'yoke', 
          is perhaps a little less comfortable. The existence of terms like brydlufu 
          'love for a wife' and freondræden, freondscipe (both meaning 'friendship'), 
          and mæglufu ('kin-love'), all used to refer to marital love, demonstrates 
          that this was not merely a matter of property and convenience. 
        The modern 
          ideal is that we should arrange our own marriages. However, the classified 
          ads in any local or national paper will include numerous dating services. 
          Most aim to match like with like, but others specialize in arranging 
          marriages between those who have little in common. An internet search 
          for marriage agencies turns up numerous organizations in the former 
          Soviet Union seeking western husbands who can overlook financial inequality 
          in the search for true love. On their web-sites [5]: 
          
        
          you will 
            find over 2,000 of the world's most beautiful women, each of whom 
            is looking for a loving and sincere man that will offer them a committed 
            relationship and secure home.
        
         Even where 
          the financial motivations of a match are obvious, the partners are still 
          looking for love. Conversely, despite the modern ideal, that marriage 
          should be based upon mutual love, individuals generally marry partners 
          of similar social status and wealth. Whether our marriage choices are 
          conscious or not, we, like the Anglo-Saxons, are still influenced by 
          practical as well as emotional considerations. 
        The hardships 
          of everyday life would inevitably have had their impact on the Anglo-Saxon 
          family. For example, almost a fifth of children died in infancy, and 
          about a third of the population did not reach adulthood. Fifty would 
          have been a ripe old age [6]. Women died earlier 
          than men, largely because of the perils of childbirth [7]. 
          In 2000, the average age at divorce was 41.3 years for men, and 38.8 
          for women [8]. Perhaps divorce now fulfils the 
          role that death used to play in separating spouses who have been together 
          for too long. 
        In summary, 
          although the trappings and procedures of weddings are more extensive 
          and more formalized for us, and the complications of divorce more drawn-out 
          and painful, the end result was probably very similar in the Anglo-Saxon 
          period. Marriages were short-lived then because of death and separation. 
          They are short-lived now because we marry later and divorce more. We 
          find new partners after divorce; they found new partners after bereavement. 
          The emphasis now is on love, but practical issues still play a part; 
          then the emphasis was on the practical, but the marriage without love 
          was incomplete. The obvious exception to this was dynastic marriages, 
          which provide many examples of the bizarre and sad ways in which spouses 
          made each other's lives miserable. Disfunctional marriages aren't a 
          modern novelty, and neither are loving happy ones. 
        (If you've 
          been affected by the issues discussed in this paper, please contact 
          Relate.)
        Julie 
          Coleman
        Notes
        1. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/div0801.pdf
          2. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib/Section86.html 
          
          3. http://www.clericalmedical.co.uk/products/big_day.asp 
          
          4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,412672,00.html 
          
          5. http://www.getmarriednow.com/index_eng.shtml 
          
          6. http://viking.no/e/england/york/life_expectancy_in_jorvik.html 
          
          7. http://historymedren.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa101900b.htm#note 
          
          8. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mda0702.pdf