Comment by Dalewyn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dalewyn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Marriage being an expression and means of "love" is a fairly modern phenomenon. Looking back throughout history, the vast majority of marriages were (and arguably still are) to obtain, transfer, or maintain wealth and power.

Arranged marriages are the most obvious example. Two families get together and decide <X> and <Y> will marry to advance familial interests; wishes and desires of <X> and <Y> be damned.

Divorces becoming normalized and destigmatized (to some degree) is also a modern phenomenon. Lest we forget, the Church of England came into existence for the sole reason that the English king at the time wanted to divorce his queen.

There's no reason to feel sad that marriage isn't about "love", because that notion is at best a recent turn of events, and at worst an elaborate lie woven by storytellers of various forms through the ages. Fact of the matter is that marriage for the vast portion of human history has never been about "love". Marriage has always been about money and power, and ultimately leaving offspring in a manner whose lineage can be easily traced back.

Among the aristocracy, sure. Maybe the near-aristocracy. What about the other 99% of historical humans? Do you have any sources that the average peasant was marrying primarily for advantage? What advantage is there even to gain in a marriage between two peasants?

For the 99%, marriage was an arrangement - the man earns, the woman supports the household and both make babies to keep the family moving on. A lot of the arrangements were done by parents, even in poor families. This was all blessed by the church/temple.

Even that is a relatively modern arrangement. More typical was man does the day-to-day farming, woman raises children and produces textiles for the family's use, all hands on deck for key farming events like harvests. Most peasants earned very little hard currency; generally only a bit from surplus food or textiles when their children were the old enough to produce more than they consumed.

I'd imagine the effect is even more pronounced, where a poor farmer gladly weds his daughter for a goat.

I believe that you misunderstand arranged marriage and marriage in general.

The Christian understanding of marriage has always, always been one of mutual consent. The Catholic Church, for one, does not consider marriages valid unless both husband and wife have exchanged their free consent to the marriage as it is understood. That is, they know the implications of the vows, they know marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, and they are both willing to lovingly accept children into their family by whatever means.

Therefore, Christian families arranging marriage rely on the consent of bride and groom. It may be somewhat grudging and it may not come from a place of romantic love, but free and willing consent must be granted, or that marriage is 100% invalid.

A marriage being arranged doesn't mean it isn't on consent

Can we kill this "church of england exists because divorce" meme? It's getting grey and long in the tooth. The CoE started in the 600's with Augustine of Canterbury, even though the Celts had an earlier form of Christianity in the 3rd century.

The law around regarding consent in marriage started in the 11th century. Unless we want to remove consent and arrange marriages, the "love" influence of Christianity on marriage isn't going anywhere.

If the Church of England started in the 600s, it was nevertheless fully in union with Rome for the next 900 years. The Church of England/Roman Catholic Church was onboard with notions of exclusivity and permanence of marriage for all those intervening years.

The reason that CoE's genesis is largely traced to the mid-16th century is because Henry VIII had trouble producing an heir with an eligible wife, and he was more than willing to break with the Holy See on such a momentous issue. He declared himself Head of the Church. He declared himself arbiter of the marriage laws.

Henry arrogated so much authority that Rome was unable to continue in union with that Church of England, no matter how old and venerable its roots may have been.

I understand the history and your argument. Saying the "only reason it exists is because of Henry VIII" ignores where it began. Henry did not alter very much except kicking off the papacy and allowing annulment. The real changes came later by Cramner and Cromwell's suggestion.

It's worth nothing the English Reformation happened in the same decade as Martin Luther's sola fide, the 1520s. Divine providence?

The pope didn't own it in 600AD, the pope didn't own it in 2000AD. The 1520s is not the cause of the CoE's existence, the start in 600AD is the start of the CoE (and before that, Christ).

The Roman Catholic, papal perspective is different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com