Re: Are you a fan of Ebenbürtigkeit?
- From: Zwartendÿk <fredrik.bjorgo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 15:43:48 -0800 (PST)
On 4 Feb, 20:11, "edespal...@xxxxxxxx" <edespal...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
This has akways existed; in every part of the World, every class.
What disturbs is that Royals were prohibited to marry Commonners!
Among Commonners there was again Commonners, etc
On 4 Feb, 23:44, mdeviance <fernandezblanco...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess there may be similar cases elsewhere.
Besides, from the anthropological point of view, there has
always been a sort or rule for whom to marry or not
in all known societies.
The interesting thing about princiary Ebenbürtigkeit as opposed to
common homogamy is the pre-eminence of birth itself. Of course most
peasants always wanted their children to marry other peasant heirs
with their own farms etc. (alternatively shopkeepers, skilled artisans
etc.) and not some landless day labourer or maid, but usually it
didn't matter too much whether the family had farmed that land for
generations or just bought it recently. And certainly few farmers
would intermarry with ex-farmers who had lost their land and now were
reduced to crofters or beggars!
But, as mediatized royalty shows us, blood or birth alone is enough in
the extreme version of Ebenbürtigkeit, even if the eligible family in
question is deposed and dirt poor compared to the in-laws! That is
rather unique among humans!
I think you are making the very common mistake of
analyzing historical facts not from the historical
point of view but from modern standards,
which, of course, don't apply.
In this thread I am inviting you to analyze it from a human point of
view. It certainly makes for tragic stories of love denied on trivial
grounds. (E.g. Wilhelm I of Prussia and Elisa Radziwill.)