What was normal in the 17-1800's?

1. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   When was poligamy banned or was it ever normal, what does the bible really say about poligamy?
   
   what was the average life expectancy in the 1700's and normal age to give birth?

   replyreport
2. 65

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   I think in many places but Western polygamy is still a norm

   replyreport
3. 60

   Teresa McGurkposted 15 years ago

   Up until (really) the Industrial Revolution in the West, and the development of modern medicine, life expectancy for women was considerably lower than that of men because so many died of complications related to childbirth.  It was therefore common for men to have practiced serial monogamy with two or even three women, marrying younger women of childbearing age.  Of course there were many exceptions to this general circumstance, and if childbirth didn't get ya, there were many other diseases that claimed victims of both sexes.  But the clause "til death do us part" in the marriage ceremony used to mean something different than it does today. 
   
   Girls were married when they became "of marrigiable age" -- when they reached puberty; the best years (physically speaking) for women to have children was in their teens (if you survived childhood, that is). Still is.
   
   But take the example of Mary Shelley, who had two miscarriages by the time she was 19, and whose own mother died when Mary was six weeks old.  This was quite common, unfortunately.  I think Shelley was about 19 around 1820 or so?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Was this also a practice of the Roman Catholic Church?  I am also curious, was it also "normal" for women to still bear children into their 40's?  And men in their 70's?
      
      It's an odd question that doesn't make sense much if the life expectancy was so low then for women.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Nah -- I think women could have kids til their late thirties -- but that was middle-aged.  Men, wouldn't ya just know it, could always pop out the stuff to make babies til any age at all.
         
         Not sure what you mean by "practice of the RC Church"?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I was wondering if polygamy use to be a practice of the RCC in the late 1700's and 1800's?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               No, definitely not.  And divorce was out. 

               replyreport
            2. 66

               Lady Guinevereposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Yes it was and here is the link to the long article about it:
               http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks LG, I am gonna read it right now. 

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  To be fair, concubines are not recognized within the bounds of matrimony, because -- well, because they weren't married.  Perhaps Sandra is wondering about polygamy as a recognized convention?  Because it certainly wasn't, although, of course, you are right in saying that many priests had mistresses.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     The link said that polygamy was banned in the 1000'ish due to monetary matters. 
                     And that all preist who were married were told to get divorced. 
                     
                     With that I see it used to be a practice of tradition until it got too expensive, so do you think it still happens and is not being recognized because the church will not give inheritence to children of preist. 
                     
                     I smell conspiracy. lol  though I thought the article was a little exagerated, though I don't know for sure either, when it said that catholic men rank highest having HIV. 
                     
                     So preist are making bastards?

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        Lady Guinevereposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Another thing to throw out there is the pedophile Catholic Preists---we have no idea of knowing if they got any of the girls pregnant.........just a thought......

                        replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Ah!  money.  how could we forget?

                        replyreport
   2. 80

      LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mary Shelley's mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, died of childbirth fever. She'd already had an illegitimate child, Fanny, before her marriage to Shelley's father. Shelley's father then re-married, a woman who already had children, and they had another child together.
      
      The household then contained a huge mix of children of different parents - Mary Shelley, her step-siblings, her half-sister Fanny (not related to either adult by blood) and the new child.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Thank GOD I didn't live back then.  I have already decided, I would probably have lived as a nun or a courtesan. Maybe I'd have joined a circus or a traveling theatre troop, ?
   
     Actually started writing a poem about Italian courtesans. It probably would have been the most appealing mode, as long as you had planned for the future.
   
   Just for the freedom and education aspect alone.  Lord.
   
   BTW, the main reason women died in childbirth or soon after was due to men's dirty hands.  Literally.  LOL.  Medical doctors would work on cadavers, etc., and then deliver babies.  Many women would die of "childbirth fever" simply because of sanitation.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mother Sorensen!  LOL, it has a ring to it. 
      
      Reminds of an episode of That 70's Show where Kitty gives sex advise to Eric and she says, make sure he has clean hands. LOL  hahahhahahhaah.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      "His clothes are dirty, but his hands are clean
      And you're the best thing that he's ever seen;
      Lay, lady, lay
      lay across my big brass bed. . ."
      
      Julian of Norwich (not even her name -- that's where she lived); she wrote in the Middle Ages, and she became a nun because she was fed up having children -- she had one every year, then something just snapped and she couldn't take it anymore, joined the church, and lived as a nun for the rest of her life.  Can't say I blame her in the least.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Lifebydesignposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         What an interesting connection you made with this song Teresa. Clean hands though do translate anywhere, anytime so to speak. lol

         replyreport
      2. 80

         LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Have you read "Revelations of Divine Love"? It's great, very interesting.

         replyreport
5. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Yeah.  You can forget that!  People were not meant to have litters, EVER (personal opinion).
   
   Artemisia Gentileshi--and I probably just butchered the spelling of her name, as it has been a while--is said to have had 7 or 8 children.  She pursued her career as a great painter and supposedly her husband took care of all the kids.
   
   Still!  As a nun, you couldn't have clothes or lovers, lol!  (Well, for all anyone knew.)  Therefore--courtesan or mistress would have been the preferred choice, really, , as long as you could read what you wanted!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I know you love books, but have you seen The Other Boylen Girl?  Maybe you wouldn't want to be a mistress then. lol. 

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I prefer the model of A Dangerous Beauty (movie) and the poet/courtesan Veronica Franco.
         
         Really a beautiful film if anyone is in the mood for that kind of thing...

         replyreport
      2. 80

         LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         It was a book before a film - I've read it, but not seen it.
         
         You'll note that the mistress survived the relationship, but the wife didn't!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            what!!! In the movie the mistress (who ended up being the wife, bad girl!) ended getting her head chopped off.  The first Boylen girl mistress fell in love, had the baby boy and then got screwed by her sister the new queen that got her head chopped off. 
            
            

            replyreport
6. 66

   Lady Guinevereposted 15 years ago

   Here is another link that has the history of the canon and the celebacy laws on it and it is from the catholic encylopedia----  http://criticaltheology.net/II_Chronolo … ibacy.html

   replyreport
7. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   What about The Dutchess, that movie made me cry like a baby.  Even if love existed between, The Dutchess had to give up her love child because even women who have mist-er-esess get a bad rap.

   replyreport
8. 80

   LondonGirlposted 15 years ago

   Yes, Mary (probably older, unlike the book) was a mistress only, Anne was a wife, and executed.

   replyreport