Indeed, we can to distinguish the two different sides of marriage in the Renaissance period. Indeed, it was both secular and sacred -- this could appear paradoxical, because these two words seem to be contradictory. On the first hand: Secular, because it served as a union of two parties which searched for the acquisition of money or properties. Indeed, like in the Middle Ages, property right was very important. Besides, because of this right, the younger of the sons for example had to marry a woman who possessed lands because, land descended to the eldest son, so the younger often received nothing. Furthermore, following this tradition of inheritance, if there was no son in a family, land descended to the daughter and if there were several daughters, the heritage was shared between them. Besides, the widows had a large common law right which became very well protected in the 16th century. So the financial need to marry was present, it meant that the alliance was a possibility to
Indeed, we can to distinguish the two different sides of marriage in the Renaissance period. Indeed, it was both secular and sacred -- this could appear paradoxical, because these two words seem to be contradictory. On the first hand: Secular, because it served as a union of two parties which searched for the acquisition of money or properties. Indeed, like in the Middle Ages, property right was very important. Besides, because of this right, the younger of the sons for example had to marry a woman who possessed lands because, land descended to the eldest son, so the younger often received nothing. Furthermore, following this tradition of inheritance, if there was no son in a family, land descended to the daughter and if there were several daughters, the heritage was shared between them. Besides, the widows had a large common law right which became very well protected in the 16th century. So the financial need to marry was present, it meant that the alliance was a possibility to