Divorce in CKII

[Don_giorgio]

I think that this is something we need in CKII... rulers should be able to divorce their wives for reasons of adultery, failure to produce heirs, consanguinity or simply because they want a more powerful ally (there would be restrictions for that though)
If u play as a catholic u have to petition the Pope to grant u an annulment (maybe with a little gold to sweeten hum also)
If Pope grants u the annulment u get the option of either keeping your ex wife in court or send her back to her father (with her dowry of course!!)... Now if your wife comes from a powerful family she might attempt to block the annulment leading to some interesting events...
If u play as an orthodox u can petition for divorce to your local Bishop (since in Orthodox Church diocesan Bishops have absolute authority in their diocese) same rules apply here about leaving your ex in court or send her back...
Another interesting point should be that married courtiers in your court could ask u to to intervene in order to obtain a divorce...

 

[Drakken]

Agreed, but with heavy consequences. If not, it'd be just too easy to annul marriages as soon as wives hit 40 because the mechanics render them infertile.

 

[Don_giorgio]

Agreed, but with heavy consequences. If not, it'd be just too easy to annul marriages as soon as wives hit 40 because the mechanics render them infertile.

Yeap totally agree... There would be some serious penalties for divorce both in prestige and piety...

 

[Drakken]

Also, remember that certain reasons that we today see as "granted" for divorce wouldn't work under canon law in the Middle Ages. For instance, adultery wasn't sufficient a reason to have a marriage annuled, even if the wife would have had 100 lovers.

 

[Don_giorgio]

Also, remember that certain reasons that we today see as "granted" for divorce wouldn't work under canon law in the Middle Ages. For instance, adultery wasn't sufficient a reason to have a marriage annuled, even if the wife would have had 100 lovers.

Again i agree... But adultery could be a good pretext for the ruler to present his case to the Holy See and have chances to obtain the annulment rather than trying to divorce her just to marry his mistress or trying to secure an alliance...

 

[unmerged(133356)]

At least in CK1, that infertility must not have been immediately and absolute, because one of the queens of Croatia (in my Crotia campaign, not real history) had a son younger than a couple of her grandsons...

 

[Drakken]

Again i agree... But adultery could be a good pretext for the ruler to present his case to the Holy See and have chances to obtain the annulment rather than trying to divorce her just to marry his mistress or trying to secure an alliance...

As I said, adultery wouldn't be an acceptable reason as far as canon law is concerned. But of course, monarchs would circumvent the issue, by arguing consanguinity or on technicalities instead, for instance whether the doors of the church were closed or open when the wedding occured.

Philippe I of France attempted to do exactly that: seek annulment plainly to get rid of his wife and marry his mistress in second noces, and he ended up excommunicated. Hence why he couldn't participate in the First Crusade, so he sent his ineffectual brother Hugues of Vermandois instead.

 

[Mrdie]

In a great majority of situations it's unlikely that one's spouse will have done something so offensive to the Church as to warrant a relatively painless divorce (unless she became a heathen, maybe?) but I do agree it'd be nice to have the option once that boundary is crossed and at least some sections of the Church would sympathize with the husband's case.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

A ruler's relations with the church/pope should definitely play a part in how easily he can obtain an annulment.

 

[Drakken]

In a great majority of situations it's unlikely that one's spouse will have done something so offensive to the Church as to warrant a relatively painless divorce (unless she became a heathen, maybe?) but I do agree it'd be nice to have the option once that boundary is crossed and at least some sections of the Church would sympathize with the husband's case.

Philippe IV of France certainly dealt with it violently: two of his three daughters-in-law were sentenced to life in prison, the other one sentenced to prison at His Majesty's pleasure for being a willful accomplice, and the male lovers, for the crime of lese-majesty, were publicly wheeled, skinned alive, castrated, decapitated, and hanged - including in front of the two said daughters-in-law brought by cartwheels to witness the executions.

 

[Cocco81]

Usually the most common reason was either consanguinity or some kind of kinship... due to a technicality in th edefinition of marriage, if the woman had been formerly engaged (officially or not) with the man's brother, she would be considered something like a sister in law and then the marriage would be null and void.

It is a technicality, usually it had to be actively sought and enforced to be effective. Nonetheless, it provided a good and "morally acceptable" reason to cancel the marriage (and note, not a divorce).

 

[Captain Frakas]

It's simple, either the consanguinity/kinship is too close either the spouse isn't able to give birth.
In all case, it reacquire papal approval.

Philippe IV of France certainly dealt with it violently: two of his three daughters-in-law were sentenced to life in prison, the other one sentenced to prison at His Majesty's pleasure for being a willful accomplice, and the male lovers, for the crime of lese-majesty, were publicly wheeled, skinned alive, castrated, decapitated, and hanged - including in front of the two said daughters-in-law brought by cartwheels to witness the executions.

It's a special case: it isn't really a case of divorce but a case of fornication with lady of royal blood. It's one of the worst lèse-majestée crime possible as it could lead to suspect legitimacy of monarch who could be a bastard and so question the legitimacy of the whole monarchist institution.

 

[Drakken]

It's a special case: it isn't really a case of divorce but a case of fornication with lady of royal blood. It's one of the worst lèse-majestée crime possible as it could lead to suspect legitimacy of monarch and so the legitimacy of the monarchy as a whole.

Still, no immediate annulment was pronounced. Even with such a gross case of adultery and lese-majesty, they were still left married to Louis, Philippe, and Charles, and both Clement V and Philippe IV died before they could set the annulment process in motion. So Margerite of Burgundy, although jailed in Chateau-Gaillard, was de jure Queen of France.

In the eyes of the world, Jeanne of Navarra was still Louis' daughter, even though her paternity was now in dispute. It was in dispute enough to be bypassed for the crown of France, but ironically not for the crown of Navarra.

 

[Don_giorgio]

In the eyes of the world, Jeanne of Navarra was still Louis' daughter, even though her paternity was now in dispute. It was in dispute enough to be bypassed for the crown of France, but ironically not for the crown of Navarra.

Jeanne de Navarre wasnt bypassed because her alleged illegitimacy (though her paternity is still disputed by some historians)... She was bypassed because France applied Salic Law which barred females from succession... On the other hand Navarre's laws didnt exclude females from inheritance so Jeanne inherited only the Navarese Crown upon her infant's brother Jean I death while the French Crown went to her uncle Philippe who became Philippe V...

 

[Captain Frakas]

Jeanne de Navarre wasnt bypassed because her alleged illegitimacy (though her paternity is still disputed by some historians)... She was bypassed because France applied Salic Law which barred females from succession... On the other hand Navarre's laws didnt exclude females from inheritance so Jeanne inherited only the Navarese Crown upon her infant's brother Jean I death while the French Crown went to her uncle Philippe who became Philippe V...

The Salic law didn't existed yet...
Jeanne of Navarra could have inherited the crown of France, this idea was accepted by all barons because it's how it worked in all feudal estates of the Kingdom of France. The Salic law was invented/rediscovered by lawyers to precisely prevent a possibly illegitimate lady to become queen of France. So yes, she was bypassed.

 

[vertinox]

As I said, adultery wouldn't be an acceptable reason as far as canon law is concerned. But of course, monarchs would circumvent the issue, by arguing consanguinity or on technicalities instead, for instance whether the doors of the church were closed or open when the wedding occured.

Philippe I of France attempted to do exactly that: seek annulment plainly to get rid of his wife and marry his mistress in second noces, and he ended up excommunicated. Hence why he couldn't participate in the First Crusade, so he sent his ineffectual brother Hugues of Vermandois instead.

Arguably, having a good relationship with the Pope was more important for an anulment than actually having a valid reason.

Also, the wife and her families relationship with the Pope also comes into play. Although about 75 years out of the scope of CK, the Pope wouldn't give King Henry the VIII an annulment because he was more afraid of his wife's family members (the Holy Roman Emperor) than King Henry.

So lets say you are good with the Pope but the wife's dynasty is not (maybe members are heretics or excommunicated) then you have a better shot at annulment. But if you are on the outs with the Pope and the wife's family is in with the pope (wheather via force or just being pious) then you won't get one.

 

[RedRooster81]

This is all assuming that it will be available through the game mechanics. It will have to allow both partners to remarry and keep any children that they had together legitimate.

 

[Drakken]

This is all assuming that it will be available through the game mechanics. It will have to allow both partners to remarry and keep any children that they had together legitimate.

Given that it can be found everywhere in the Western Medieval world, I am sure it will be available through game mechanics somehow. However, the consequences should be dire to prevent abuses.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

This is all assuming that it will be available through the game mechanics. It will have to allow both partners to remarry and keep any children that they had together legitimate.

If a marriage is annulled, which mostly happend on grounds of being to close related, so the marriage was illegal according to church laws. So children from that marriage where no longer considered legitimate since they came from an illegal marriage.

 

[RedRooster81]

If a marriage is annulled, which mostly happend on grounds of being to close related, so the marriage was illegal according to church laws. So children from that marriage where no longer considered legitimate since they came from an illegal marriage.

Good point. That part is unclear to me for canon law before the Council of Trent. Currently, children remain legitimate heirs, both in the eyes of the state (of course) and the Catholic Church. CK1 does make Bohemond de Hauteville a bastard, but historically in Norman fashion (favoring gavelkind) Robert Guiscard divided his realm among his two eldest sons, and Bohemond's status as a bastard never seems to come up. By the same token, Henry VIII received annulments from the Church of England (still very conservative in terms of theology) for his wives Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, but no one to my knowledge ever considered his daughters Mary and Elizabeth to be bastards, and both ultimately succeeded to the throne. But maybe someone better versed in medieval canon law should take up the question.