How did marrying off one's daughter help secure an alliance, in early medieval Europe?

Upvote:3

Several of the other answers have hit this, but I'm going to put the same idea in a slightly different way.

If I marry my daughter to the prince of FarOffIstan, then there is a chance that my grandchildren will rule the country. It is in my best interest to ensure that FarOffIstan is strong and prosperous. My daughter's husband's father shares that same interest.

For societies that conceive of wealth as land, marriage is quite literally an investment - deferred short term benefits will reap rewards for our descendants. (alternatively, think of it as a reverse tontine...) Both families will observe each other and measure how committed the other party is to the welfare of the Grandchildren. Both parties should fight & struggle to improve the future value of the investment.

Of course if either of the couple dies before the grandchildren are able to rule, there is the risk that the family of the surviving child will need to secure new investors (so to speak). If there is a grandchild, then a Regency council may preserve the value of the investment; if there is no grandchild, then all that effort has been wasted.

Upvote:4

If your daughter is the mother of the monarch's children, that would inhibit most monarchs from attacking you. After all, you're the children's grandparent (and monarch's parent in law). And the monarch hopes that his children will inherit from you, as well as him.

Not to mention the likely impact of "pillow talk." Unless the daughter hates you for some reason.

Upvote:5

If anything it seemed the daughter can be used as hostage or a bargaining chip

That could be an option if the sides were not on the equal terms. Say, if you have to show your loyalty to the conditions of some peace treaty after an unsuccessful war, then sending such "a hostage" may save you a couple of fortresses. After all, girls need husbands.

On the other hand, if you are on equal terms, then by this marriage you make another monarch to owe you. And this could be of much help, say, if you have both a daughter and a son.

But how does this guarantee (or at least increase the confidence) that the other monarch will not betray you?

Such marriages may also be the part of formal treaties between countries. And at the very least, just the fact of marriage effectively cancels out any previous casus belli.

Upvote:9

Such marriages were usually part of wider treaties, including a dowry, non-aggression and/or mutual support agreements. The king didn't just get a queen, he got a chunk of land, possible inheritance rights, not to mention preventing his enemies making the same pact with his wife's family. Foreign princesses were mistreated - Catherine of Aragon after Prince Arthur's death, and when Henry 8 divorced her, but I suspect the possible advantages of your daughter/sister being Queen of a foreign power outweighed, in terms of realpolitik, any potential abuse.

Amusingly, when Christiana of Denmark was offered the chance of marrying Henry 8, she replied that, had she two necks, the King of England would have been welcome to one of them!

More post

Search Posts

Related post