On marrying and marrying off women of impure virtue.

[Delta5ff]

I really could not think of a good title for this thread so my apologies for that, anyway onto the main topic.

In CK2 I always found on passing strange that my unmarried daughter could be indiscreet and get herself pregnant. Then when the time came for me to get her married off it would cause no hindrance at all to finding a husband for her.

I was always under the impression that women still having their virginity was really important at this period in history was of paramount importance. To the point where women who had lost their virginity (especially of the lower ranks) would find it impossible to find a good husband.

This has been my one major problem with CK2 and now that CK3 is coming around I hope to start a discussion about this and hopefully get something implemented that will put heavy opinion modifies against marrying women who have been indiscreet.

Also if a child is not produced from such unions ot could play into the hook system where the family is trying to keep it a secret and get her married as quick as possible and if someone finds out they would have a lot of leverage over the family.

 

[Metz77]

It has always seemed odd to me, as well. Not only should it be difficult to marry off a woman who's known to have had a child out of wedlock, it should probably also be grounds for terminating a betrothal without the normal opinion malus.

 

[Paragon Badger]

It really depended on the time and place but I don't think it was altogether that unusual. Not by itself.

At lower ranks, especially among commoners, virginity wasn't... super important. The irony of the middleages is that lower strata, while being economically and politically repressed at every opportunity, enjoyed a bit more social freedom. It's a big deal if the Holy Roman Emperor is discovered to be a sodomite. That blacksmith in Werstesheshishire? Eh, who cares who he diddles in his off time.

American historians in particular (myself included ) tend to associate the Medieval Period with our own early colonial period- so ideas about Puritanical faith at all levels of society tend to color the narrative. Our puritans were religious refugees and shouldn't be used to extrapolate what the common folk were like back in Europe. Further complicating matters was the fact that... well, chroniclers only bothered to write about important people- the nobles and the like.

I think marriage and marriageability was more important than virginity. We see a lot of widows getting remarried in the period. This was easier if they had no children, to avoid sketchy inheritance conflicts. While I think wikipedia's article 'Medieval female sexuality' leaves a lot to be desired (lacking context about what region or timeframe its talking about), it does have this gem.

However, the German Schwabenspiegel allowed a woman over twenty-five to engage in sexual activity without her father's consent or threat of the loss of inheritance.

I would like to see 'Tolerance' Technology, if it comes back in CK3, represent a wider range of foreign/female tolerance... which would mean some places even in a 9th century start would begin with it very high.

Tolerance 0 would probably be best represented by the Islamic world. No counselor positions, no inheritance, but also segregation (making seduction difficult) and a general prohibition on marrying widows or single mothers (though Muhammad himself is an exception to this, famously marrying many widows)

Tolerance 5 or 6 would probably closer represent India. Although the Vedas are somewhat contrary and many regions had personal interpretations, you could reliably expect to see female counselers but also mandatory bastard inheritance (if no other heir is available) While divorce was possible, widows were generally expected to take monastic vows. Adultery was a big deal but was actually permissible in many places if the spouse consented to it. Crusader Kings III, more like 'Kinky Swinger Kings III', am I right!?

So I think it should really vary from place to place.

Being an unmarried English queen with a child? That should probably tank like 75% of your prestige and make you less desirable for marriage. An unmarried countess in Kerala? Eh. Like 15% at the most.

 

[Arbus]

Absolutely. Virginity should be a trait for women increasing their desirability in marriage. After a woman's married she would get the "married" trait. After a woman's divorced she would get "divorced" trait which would give a negative modifier in desirability for future marriages. If a woman's "windowed" she could marry again with no negative or positive modifiers. If a woman has a child out of wedlock, as a virgin, this would give her the "defiled" modifier making her very undesirable. If a married woman has a child with another man she would get "adultress" which is again a very negative modifier.

 

[Rokh]

a general prohibition on marrying widows or single mothers (though Muhammad himself is an exception to this, famously marrying many widows)

Widow(er)s and divorcees had no problem remarrying in the Muslim world.

 

[Delta5ff]

At lower ranks, especially among commoners, virginity wasn't... super important. The irony of the middleages is that lower strata, while being economically and politically repressed at every opportunity, enjoyed a bit more social freedom. It's a big deal if the Holy Roman Emperor is discovered to be a sodomite. That blacksmith in Werstesheshishire? Eh, who cares who he diddles in his off time.

Be we are talking about the upper classes here as you are unable to play a commoner. And if your trying to marry above your station having an impure daughter would probably be a really big hindrance while been a king with an impure daughter may be very difficult to marry on the same level it would likely still be fairly easy to marry a count or Duke of a lower renown dynasty as they would welcome the boost in station.

 

[fall back]

What are you talking about she isn’t now you two get along and have some time alone and um get to know each other (winks)
Random king

 

[guinea prince]

Our primate cousins will actually favour older females that have already produced children, over nubile females who should be sexually mature. Turns out they value mates that have proven their ability to produce children, more so than virginity. So, there's precedent

 

[sortulv]

CK2 tended to make public all children. A more realistic version might be to have any bastards hidden. After all, to a noble in a different country, it would be tricky to find out about any previous children unless specifically told about it. But to me, such secrecy would just get in the way of the game. My character does not know these things, but as a player it is nice to know a little of what goes no behind the curtain.

 

[Paragon Badger]

Widow(er)s and divorcees had no problem remarrying in the Muslim world.

Oop. You're right. I'm a fool for trying to generalize. In some ways, women had more rights in the Islamic world compared to the Christian one. In other ways, less. I suppose no single metric can be used to accurately describe these situations...

This is the curse of painting with too broad a brush the various cultural/technological/features. Perhaps instead of technology, all things related to women should be handled by some combination of culture and religion... but I loathe having to hover over my religion and read through a laundry list of features like we have in CK2.

I mention the commoners and burghers because even if we can't play as them, it's always possible to scandalize the court by marrying 'below one's station.'

 

[Arona]

Yes Not a virgin women were less desireble, and there were people where it were totaly intolrable. But it also were leverage. Where ambitions people with lover moral standards saw this as option to get better pride price or benefits to marryin with defiled woman.

What you think is you vassal count asks triple pride price with marrying your defiled daughter or he asks caim on some county or duchy. and office qyarantees for 15 years.

 

[Paragon Badger]

Actually.... that's interesting.

If EVERY marriage was like a coronation, where you had to haggle and barter or just be good friends with the other family- it would make for quite an interesting dynamic.

Just as long as they aren't as unreasonable as the pope is...

"Declare war on the Holy Roman Empire for your crown, tiny kingdom with 4k levies!"

 

[Arona]

Actually.... that's interesting.

If EVERY marriage was like a coronation, where you had to haggle and barter or just be good friends with the other family- it would make for quite an interesting dynamic.

Just as long as they aren't as unreasonable as the pope is...

"Declare war on the Holy Roman Empire for your crown, tiny kingdom with 4k levies!"

Unreasonabilty can be custom.

Karling demands 500 gold for pride price it can be overkill for count or some duke, but just big or normal price foe king or archduke

 

[Mysterios]

Yeah - I would like to have more of a banter mechanic in marriage as well. If I remember correctly, it was not uncommon in these times that the dowry of kings sometimes included land-rights and castles from the parents of the bride. It would be interesting if you could directly barter with potential husbands (or his parents) for these things. Maybe, if the husband wanted to marry in a higher status, he could also use some indirect bribes.

In such a system, the "livestyle" of the woman and man could be included. Bastards would have negative impact for both, for the man more. Status and values of the two could be estimated. If the parents had greed, money would have a greater effect. If they want fame, maybe a title or two for the heir of the family could be offered. There are many possibilities for bartering that could be included.

 

[Wolfshield156]

CK2 tended to make public all children. A more realistic version might be to have any bastards hidden. After all, to a noble in a different country, it would be tricky to find out about any previous children unless specifically told about it. But to me, such secrecy would just get in the way of the game. My character does not know these things, but as a player it is nice to know a little of what goes no behind the curtain.

Actually if mother is able to high to full term you should be given another option than the get rid, accept as bastard while openly admitting who the mother is, and fully embrace into the dynasty. There should be choice to raise the child in court, but keep the mother secret. This can even be use as one of those hooks for the mother and person who tried to keep it secret.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Wasn't the main concern chastity and fidelity rather than virginity? Many noblewomen had no problem getting married again after being widowed or divorced.

 

[Arona]

Wasn't the main concern chastity and fidelity rather than virginity? Many noblewomen had no problem getting married again after being widowed or divorced.

Do you think it was easy to them get marryd again, most cases they marry down in rank, some high posision offical or rich merchant who wished to have royal blood in they veins to get futher legimacy. Or if they succeeded to marry same rank there were price condisions for it, so it were never easy to marry again.

In late early 17teens started a behavior where virginity and chastity werent that important but also then some duke and counts didnt have real power , most power were centralized to king.

 

[Rokh]

Oop. You're right. I'm a fool for trying to generalize. In some ways, women had more rights in the Islamic world compared to the Christian one. In other ways, less. I suppose no single metric can be used to accurately describe these situations...

This is the curse of painting with too broad a brush the various cultural/technological/features. Perhaps instead of technology, all things related to women should be handled by some combination of culture and religion... but I loathe having to hover over my religion and read through a laundry list of features like we have in CK2.

You hit the nail on the head, friend

 

[Blackfang12]

I guess "Tolerance Laws" or Tenets could be their own categories that you could set

 

[Rubidium]

Do you think it was easy to them get marryd again, most cases they marry down in rank, some high posision offical or rich merchant who wished to have royal blood in they veins to get futher legimacy. Or if they succeeded to marry same rank there were price condisions for it, so it were never easy to marry again.

In late early 17teens started a behavior where virginity and chastity werent that important but also then some duke and counts didnt have real power , most power were centralized to king.

It really depends on the woman and how important her inheritance/money was. A rich heiress without kids? A great catch (Eleanor of Aquitaine's colorful marital history didn't discourage Henry Plantagenet from marrying her and adding Aquitaine to his empire, and Isabella I of Jerusalem famously remarried while still visibly pregnant with her late husband's kid).

On the other hand, a younger daughter who didn't stand to inherit anything would be a harder sell (although, depending on the terms of the will, she might also have more freedom to pick her own husband if she was financially secure enough).