Find out what medieval brides had to do: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-chJLx2__bcM.html Learn about the Knights of the Cross TV show: www.knightsofthecross.com/
it seems that his daughters had the best outcome. Their father didn’t treat them like pawns. I can’t help thinking of poor Catherine of Aragon whose parents sent her off to hopefully one day be the queen of England, only to have her become a victims of the Tudor dynasty.
Or Marie-Antoinette and many, many other young women pimped out by their dads in exclusive arrangements (because they valued power over the happiness of their children)
@@minagica I wouldn’t say that. They believed that the ideal situations for their children would be marrying into wealthy royal families and living lives of nobility. Also it should be noted that sons were treated the same way.
@@minagica Marie Antoinette was actually pimped out by her powerful mother. Maria Theresa actually inherited Austria and was empress. But she was just as bad as noble father's who did the same thing.
Fascinating video. The fact that Charlemagne let them have common law husbands, and loved his grand children is wonderful. It’s good to know they were allowed full lives even if their children could not inherit.
Honestly probably the most ideal situation in history. Because you've all explicitly given up your claims your not a threat to anyone, but you would get looked after as any of the king/emperors having homeless family members looked bad on everyone.
The idea of Charlemagne not marrying off his daughters just because he loved having them around is really sweet. Sure, I imagine the whole not fracturing his empire with grandkids was also part of it too.
At first I was worried when you said his daughters weren't allowed to marry, but then pleasantly surprised to hear they were allowed to make love matches. Sounds like the daughters actually had lovely lives ❤
I am frankly surprised at this! Many Kings and Emperors from after Charlemagne wouldn't have done this! But then again, he loved his daughters, whereas, other Kings although, they probably loved their children, including their daughters, they served a purpose.
according to Salic Frankish law, the legal SONS of his daughters had a strong claim to this throne, which is big competition for the heirs of his sons, which has proven throughout history to be a problem : way too many heirs...in a big family, and if daughters were married to rival princes, a possible even more rivalrous relationships developing between cousins all for his throne . this is a big consideration when you have a large and mighty kingdom worth fighting over, and rival prince sons in law pushing to get the throne for themselves, and their heirs. it actually makes perfect sense that Charlemagne felt this way, and is not as selfish as it appears, as civil war is often the result from different factions who all have equal rights to the throne. the whole reason why other princes, kings or lords wanted to marry his daughters was to have access to his kingdom, which just makes rivals for charlemagne s sons and grandkids
Yep. Agree. That was my first thought. That’s a lot of daughters who need dowries, i.e. lands, and probably most important, military help when needed. . But I’m glad he loved his family. That’s a bit refreshing!
WW1.was in effect a pissing contest of large egos between cousins. The 4 kings involved….1 murdered, 2 exiled and 1 left standing were all related by blood.
His majesty had a lot more sense than many of his descendants. It was exactly such succession issues that led to the Hundred Years War, among other such wars. All that blood and treasure wasted in brother-wars when it should have been spent on Crusades.
Templars were the most wealthy they didnt need money to proceed .and pope and king eventually prosecuted templars,as i remember reading .so it doesnt mean crusades were what you you abviously think
One time, one of Charlemagne’s daughters was visited by her lover. But by the next morning, it had snowed, and if her lover left, everyone would see the footprints. So instead, the princess carried her lover lover on her back so their affair wouldn’t be discovered! It almost worked, but just then, Charlemagne stepped out on the balcony to enjoy the morning air and saw them! Eventually it was decided that they should just marry
@@Raleyg Yeah, I suspected as much. Einhard is good when he sticks to the historical record, but he does tend to veer off occasionally into the 'gee whiz' territory of apocryphal tales. In this case, it doesn't fit with physics ( :-) ), or of the living conditions in the palace. Cute story, but I really wonder what Einhard was thinking.
If he loved them that much, he may have also been dealing with the thought that they would also be safer with him than in other situations. Very interesting program
I.e. he let them have love "marriages": the girls got to be with people they loved instead of high-class prostitutes pawned out it some alliance marriage and he got to break up his dynasty a bit less. Win-win if you ask me ☺️
It make sense for him to tell his son not to fight and marry his daughters to people who loyal to him and from the same country as him. I like the way he do things, very smart. By marrying his daughters to noble men from his country. He can be with them and his daughters husband will not dare to mistreat them.
It wasn’t just rival claims through legitimate marriages, but also having to give up land or whole counties as part of dowries for daughters that played a part in keeping his daughters close.
@@dianalindeman1644 They seemed pretty content with it by the sound of it. If they were happy with their "common law husbands", then I don't think it really matters.
@@Grognack agree. And then they actually got to be with some they picked, and not sent off 3,000 miles away, never to be seen again, and married off to god knows what. I’d picked that in a heartbeat.
When a daughter marries, you need to give her a dowry. This is the wealth she brings to the marriage and is combined with the husband's wealth, which they they use for making a living and bringing up children. Also, the daughter has a right to some of her fathers wealth once he dies.
My ancestor was Oberto 1st Charlemagne General he married one of his Daughters and started several Italian families in Italy and connections to Castello Malaspina The De Este family was one of these families that branched off from Oberto 1st
I mean he had more daughters than sons. So he probably didnt want more pretenders taking up arms against the male line. But I read that he allowed his daughters to have illicit sexual relations with other men in court though.
@@andreassewell7413 i mean there is probably a case to be made that they simply covered such scandals up, but thats what I just read. Charlemagne 'turned a blind eye' to such affairs, might be true might be untrue, this is what makes it very exciting to learn.
ehh Im not sure about that just because the risk of them getting pregnant could be disastrous for succession, though I don't doubt that at least some of his daughters had sexual relations with men at court regardless of whether he allowed it or not because humans are just like that it's only natural
The Carolingian Franks, in particular Charles' court, is my current field. I really appreciate your sticking to the sources and not making wild accusations based on our modern views of relationships. Of course, once Charles was dead, Louis had his sisters split from their families and expelled from the palace- he disposed of them by sending them off to be abbesses. Mind you, they were very well educated and it was possibly a practical move, but the chroniclers all indicate that he was offended by their licentiousness. At least that was his excuse. Given his own relationships with his wives, I suspect that there's more than a little misogyny rattling around in his head.
@@sagapoetic8990 Well, that's were they stayed. It's not a job you leave, really... I'm a bit hampered at the moment because I'm, not home, I'm 120 miles away at my daughter's, and don't have access to my books. What I can remember off the top of my head, Rotrude, who had once been affianced to the Byzantine heir (this didn't go through, which was probably a good thing, since he was the son of Irena, who later had him deposed, emasculated, and blinded) was probably the best known for her scholarship. Something that is interesting to compare is the various accounts from different sources. Einhard definitely shows Charles as the pater familias, rather indulgent but clearly very attached to the girls. The writer known as 'the Astronomer' was writing during Louis' reign, and like other writers, conformed more to the mores of the time. he's the one who goes off the rails a bit, making the women of the palace into a veritable cesspit of sin, and responsible for the moral decay of Charles' court. Suuuure. Nithard and the Royal Frankish Annals are more neutral. Janet Nelson (AKA 'Jinty') has some interesting observations on the subject, and Mayke de Jong has also done some work in that area. I don't remember if Rosemary McKetterick addresses them, but it would be worth looking.
Brehon law regarding marriages also persisted in Eire for centuries, allowing for different types of marriages. High King Brian Boru divorced his scheming Norse wife Gormlaith, setting in motion events that led to a monumental showdown with her son Sitric, viking king of Dublin at Clontarf and the end of the viking reign of terror in Europe.
Gormfhlaith wasn’t Norse. She was the daughter of the King of Leinster, Murchad MacFinn. She got a bad rap because of one mention of her in one account of the Battle of Clontarf but the Annals of Inisfallen imply that she remained married to Brian and was still his widow and ‘Queen of Munster’ when she died in 1030.
Great vid! Another idea might be that if their marriage turned sour, the daughters would have nowhere to go- not without diplomatic catastrophe. At home, a separation wouldn’t be so horrible.
I find historians don't generally do a very good job of bringing historical characters to life and they dehumanise them a bit. I'm interested in character traits, motives and who they were as people so i really liked this video. You've made me feel like i know Charlesmagne as a man a bit better.
Three sister princesses all with a happily ever after. They chose who they wanted to marry by the sound of it. Not exactly any reason to want to marry nobility if you are already favored family of the strongest emperor.
I have read that Bertha ended marrying Helgaud II, Count of Ponthieu. But in the end yes none of his daus kids were threats. Bertha older kid, Nithard far i read went to become a noted soldier and advisor to Charles the Bald of France (his 1st degree cousin).
I was thinking that from the start...can you imagine the royal alliances that would have created if he married them off to foreign nations? Europe might have turned out much differently. Makes sense that he wanted to keep things in the family.
Cultural differences, probably. Charlemagne was an early Christian so it likely wasn't as much of a cultural practice to lock up promiscuous/willful daughters in his time and culture. Charlemagne seems to have loved and respected his daughters deeply, so there's personal reasons. He was also technically an illegitimate child himself as his parents were bound by Friedelehe contract and not officially married till later. Northern European women tended to have more social autonomy than Southern European ones too, depending on time and place. Charlemagne also lived in the time before the Church had totally broken up clan structures, so his daughters having illegitimate children by local men meant the kids (probably) wouldn't be a legal (like inheritance) or social (being foreign) threat.
Had they officially married, their ambitious husbands would have demanded recognition in the form of land, titles and power. Had Charlemagne refused to grant them this, they would have started to plot against him and probably murdered him and his sons, in order to seize the Empire for themselves. Alternatively, Civil War could have ensued. Either way, Charlemagne's Empire would have fallen apart and he himself would have been dead.
I'm curious, when you discuss Engelbert, the poet, being Bertha's "husband" (would concubine be a better word?), you show an animation of a mounted knight. Was Engelbert a trained warrior as well as a poet? That would be interesting for a man of his time.
Yes, he was an aristocratic Frank, he was a warrior as well as a poet. I don't think concubine would be a better word. I think in the sense of the traditional tribal ideas of the Franks, she was his wife. They simply were never married according to the Christian religion, so their relationship was more private and familial rather than political and official.
What about Cnut the Great? Alfred the Great? Edward III of England? Pedro II of Brazil? Certainly those were far above the level of Richard II, who didn’t do much more than to fight in several battles in a crusade that failed, not to talk about his only 10 year long reign where he spent almost no time in England at all.
Imagine if other rulers had the foresight, how many other innovations would have been brought about outside of war. What kind of family values would we have now?
Not to mention incest among royalty would have dropped. With all the children of different Royal families marrying each other over and over again it eventually led to inbreeding
@@mysteryjunkie9808 yes, less resources would go to trying to allie/eliminate cadet branches. So you could focus on a comprehensive system for inheritance. You'd probably see more of Charlemagne's great-grandchildren marrying within the gentry of their areas to, loyalty to the reigning monarch would feel more deeply ingrained. Most claims would stay within concentrated areas. Sister lines would be illegitimate but loyal too. But this would all only come about if they had strong borders and the main royal line could continue to intermittently secure advantageous foreign marriages.
@@okdude8215 Sure. I said foresight. As in he came to the conclusion that his daughter's marriages could lead to foreign claimants so he didn't arrange for them to go to other great rulers. His sons could follow the example to prevent the same issues thus reducing the amount they'd have to fight outside the family. Which would give them more time develop their nation. But we know that one good idea doesn't save the day. I just didn't think it mattered so much to you to nitpick a topic we weren't discussing.
To believe this one must understand the horrific chaos and carnage of the fratricidal wars the Merovingians had engaged on. His son was a weakling and his grandsons split the empire. If his daughters had been married to great lords of Europe their descendants might have competed for the empire even worse than they did. I have always thought very cruel how royal parents treated their daughters in the middle ages. He may have been the exception.
He was devoted to God.If a woman gives herself to a man in marriage she cannot give herself to God. What you do on earth I will uphold in heaven, it says in the Bible. Charlemagne didn't want his daughters to bond themselves to a man, but to God.
@@RealCrusadesHistory They didn't have a marriage with any man done in a religious ceremony under God. They had partners that were significant others to them, but they were not bonded under any contract. That's a Big difference..
@@rebeccacooper2874 So they had a bond with their partners just not the kind recognized as contractually valid under God. Sounds like the daughters made a very happy family situation out of their “living in sin” lifestyle. The legitimate heirs had no need to fear their cousins as a threat to their claim to the throne and thus could grow up together with healthier family bonds.
@@harleyquinn5774 who am I to know the whole mind of God when I cannot even pretend to know. I have my own Sins to deal with and cannot judge theirs, as it is not my place. All I know is to have all hope, love and faith in God and whatever his justice is, so be it. May God have mercy on us all..
Apparently, Charlemagne is considered by some to be the "All Father " of European (White) people. Some think that there are many direct descendants of this King.
@@Lingist081 I don't doubt you. Add to that the people who are of those ethnicities that live in the colonial countries of the US, Canada, and Australia. We have over 300 million people here in the US, so people of those ethnicities are in the millions. I, myself have a bit of Nederlander blood from my moms' side.
@@MrBastilleDay marriage wasn’t a Christian sacrament until the 13th century, in my history class our teacher said it was a later reinterpretation to say he had one wife and then concubines, because it was common for rich men to have multiple wives until it became a sacrement. A good portion of Europe wasn’t even Christian until the 11th century. Heck Lithuania and parts of Poland and Russia didn’t become Christian until the 13th century.
I wish you had turned on CLOSED CAPTIONS for us deaf/hard of hearing people. As a history buff, this is something I would have very much enjoyed learning.
Oh ffs wise up. If you looked into the subject the horses that were used for war were very well trained, they were also trained to kill, they weren't just ridden, a trained warhorse could disembowel you among other things. They were very well looked after and would have lived better than most peasants and more than likely quite liked a battle, now when you get to the world wars especially the first one that's when they suffered more but sadly it was necessary.
