Wasnt there like a king of England that had the church divorce his wife cuz she couldn’t has kids? Or like she couldnt give hin a son and then she went on to have 7 with another dude lol
It's not about not producing a child. It's about no intend to do so. So no fucking => right of anullment
This is actually something you can normally do as well in our Society
Without intercourse a marriage can be anulled. There would be no need for divorce
um, depending on the region, religion, time-period, sexual orientation, cultural and/or legal significance intercourse is considered part of the marriage ceremony/is a requirement of the marriage (refusing to or not being able to perform are considered viable reasons for divorce). Within royalty, the act of consummating the marriage is to ensure an heir has been created or attempted, thereby ensuring the line of succession (royals tend to die fast too, so they want as many heirs as possible- that's why there's the famous saying the heir and the spare).
You are thinking of King Henry VIII- he had six wives because he 'wanted a son' (in reality this man was lacking and the biggest creep ever). It was during the time, divorce wasn't considered acceptable by the church and he did it anyway and just created a law saying he could.
His wives' endings goes as follows;
divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived
He k*lled his other wives because of rumours of 'adultery' or he was just bored with them or wanted to get with the next one.
He already had a son by the 3rd wive who died giving birth to him (the son survived) and then he continued to be a creep forcing marriages on young girls
There's a great musical called 'The Six' that gives a breakdown of each of the wives if you're curious.
oh it's called "repudiating" and it was a very real law, practice really, even in the case of the woan not producing a child, in certain societies. If the matrimony wasn't "consumed" the marriage could be dissolved. Matrimonies among nobility and wealthy ppl were nothing more than contracts. that is a sad reality
Also women could do it too, in France if a man was not able to perform and have an erection the woman could bring him to the judge and if he failed to harden then the wife could legally divorce him because having a child was more important than being married
That's a reality tho? Since if you're a prince, it's your duty to produce heir for the throne and such to keep the Royal bloodline alive. There may be divorces if the said prince and his wife cannot fulfill their first duty
Technically, you just need to keep the line going not necessarily the bloodline. There are several cases in history, of people adopting a child from outer families into the inner family or passing the reigns off to their wives (not their heir) over their sister on their deathbed. People are just obsessed with bloodlines and it helps when gaining power/backing within political battles in the palace.
and the obsession with 'real/pure' bloodlines came from people obsessing over things like purity, authenticity, race, and privilege/prestige. Pretty much racism, classism, etc
read the replies, I cannot fcking believe that's actually a thing in real life
not as much or as often as men, and not in all societies that use marriage as a contract. Especially not in the Victorian/renaissance/1800s eras that they often depict in these manwas.
Women had no power and being repudiated basically meant that they had to go back to living with their families if they took them back and their lives were over. Usually sent to nunneries or remarried to some minor noble as a reward for something
"good old days" pretty much have always really sucked for women... these days aren't turning out to be quite as hot either....
Ok so to start off, I'm aware this is fiction, but that law or whatever that says you can annul a marriage if the couple doesn't produce a child is ik it's obviously made for the plot but it's just stupid of an excuse art is really amazing tho, and I like both fl and ml