Got thrown out of a pseudo-medieval-setting book recently. . . the heroine didn't want to get married. Her friend laughed at the very notion, but no, she didn't want to. . .
And this in a culture where she might as well have said that she didn't want to curtsey to the king.
To be fair, both are believable as an expression of the character's immaturity. Though she'd curtsey to people of higher social status out of fear; indulgent parents might humor the other peculiarity until they had a specific match in mind.
However, when they did have a specific match in mind, they'd probably insist on it. Up until the 18th century, it was considered extremely (perhaps foolishly) liberal of parents to give their daughter the right of refusal of an unwanted match. This was all the more the case as one moved up the social ladder, because marriages involving noble or gentle families were of greater import than those involving commoners; even the mercantile classes were careful about whom their children married.
When one combines this with the facts that we are talking about girls who were usually minors, and that it was considered utterly-normal to physically-discipline a recalcitrant child, things could get ugly if a girl didn't like the match and her parents really wanted her to marry the man.
But in any case, girls looked forward to marrying in general. Marriage meant that they would become either a female head of household or at least of a sub-household within the larger one; lack of marriage would mean being permanently dependent upon one's relatives. There was also no other honorable way for anyone of the middle classes or above to have children, or even sexual relations.
Let those whom Nature hath not made for store, Harsh featureless and rude, barrenly perish: Look, whom she best endow'd she gave the more; Which bounteous gift thou shouldst in bounty cherish: She carved thee for her seal, and meant thereby Thou shouldst print more, not let that copy die ...
The interesting thing about this is that it was written well before biological evolution had been discovered, yet it contains the core of the Darwinian reason why non-reproduction constitutes biological failure. At least it shows a better understanding of evolution than does the behavior of many modern feminists or pseudo-feminists.
no subject
And this in a culture where she might as well have said that she didn't want to curtsey to the king.
To be fair, both are believable as an expression of the character's immaturity. Though she'd curtsey to people of higher social status out of fear; indulgent parents might humor the other peculiarity until they had a specific match in mind.
However, when they did have a specific match in mind, they'd probably insist on it. Up until the 18th century, it was considered extremely (perhaps foolishly) liberal of parents to give their daughter the right of refusal of an unwanted match. This was all the more the case as one moved up the social ladder, because marriages involving noble or gentle families were of greater import than those involving commoners; even the mercantile classes were careful about whom their children married.
When one combines this with the facts that we are talking about girls who were usually minors, and that it was considered utterly-normal to physically-discipline a recalcitrant child, things could get ugly if a girl didn't like the match and her parents really wanted her to marry the man.
But in any case, girls looked forward to marrying in general. Marriage meant that they would become either a female head of household or at least of a sub-household within the larger one; lack of marriage would mean being permanently dependent upon one's relatives. There was also no other honorable way for anyone of the middle classes or above to have children, or even sexual relations.
Let those whom Nature hath not made for store,
Harsh featureless and rude, barrenly perish:
Look, whom she best endow'd she gave the more;
Which bounteous gift thou shouldst in bounty cherish:
She carved thee for her seal, and meant thereby
Thou shouldst print more, not let that copy die ...
The interesting thing about this is that it was written well before biological evolution had been discovered, yet it contains the core of the Darwinian reason why non-reproduction constitutes biological failure. At least it shows a better understanding of evolution than does the behavior of many modern feminists or pseudo-feminists.