[22:01:52] @Darth: Beginning~
[22:02:05] @Darth: Before I can appropriately go into Roman Marriage and why it's interesting to know about

[22:02:20] @Darth: it's important to outline that Romans had a very different family structure from us
[22:02:39] @Darth: (Although this system is maintained in some locations around the world, particularly Greece and south Italy)

[22:02:47] @Darth: well, not exactly, but vaguely

[22:03:00] @Darth: the way this system or family worked was that you had a "Familia" (Or Greek: Oikos)
[22:03:23] @Darth: Rather than what we understand under family, the Greeks/Romans saw a familia/oikos as a workshop or as a collective of possessions
[22:03:29] @Darth: what this means is that A familia looked as following:
[22:03:50] @Darth: Pater Familias was the head of the family. He had all the possessions of all the members of the family. Everything. No one else owned anything at all.

[22:04:26] @Darth: Obviously, he could have a wife, and kids, potentially a mother. However, to be a Pater Familias you had to be the oldest of your dynasty (meaning no other males ie. your father or grandfather could be alive)
[22:04:45] @Darth: Kids were part of their father's familia
[22:04:52] @Darth: for men, they just stayed there, always part of it
[22:05:07] @Darth: for women, if they married, they left the dad's familia and became part of their new husband's familia (or his father's)
[22:05:32] @Darth: This was important because it means that children of daughters were not considered part of the daughter's dad's familia (which mattered for inheritances and such)
[22:05:42] @Darth: but more than that, a family was also the collective of slaves, for example
[22:05:52] @Darth: so "Familia" was a much broader term than today's "family"

[22:06:59] @Darth: Does that make sense so far
[22:07:06] @Darth: as this is a rather fundamental concept to understand
+zacians joined
[22:07:32] #Sundar: romans had a lot of interesting history which influenced a lot of things in the real world

[22:08:05] @Darth: Yes?
[22:08:18] #Sundar: it's quite fascinating how there was a hierarchy in these familia long ago

[22:08:27] #Sundar: nowadays it's a tad different

[22:08:48] @Darth: Well, yeah, that's the point.
[22:08:48] @Darth: Given the l;ack of response I'll just assume there's no questions about this though..

[22:09:04] @Darth: The important part to remember is that when marrying, a woman would actively change what family she was a part of
[22:09:20] @Darth: sometimes this meant that she would go from being quite wealthy to relatively less wealthy, or the opposite
[22:09:33] @Darth: but it could also mean that she went from being under a "father" to her husband being the head of the family
[22:09:43] +chimechoo: Is it possible for a woman to stay in their familia even after marriage?
[22:09:50] @Darth: no.
[22:10:00] @Darth: A woman could marry 2 ways, though
[22:10:03] @Darth: In Manu, and normally
[22:10:06] +chimechoo: In those situations of varying wealth it could be strategic for her to stay within her own family
[22:10:23] +zacians: Oh is this a lecture
[22:10:29] #Sundar: y
[22:10:29] +chimechoo: yep zacians
[22:10:33] @Darth: In manu meant she became part of the new faimly

[22:10:44] @Darth: not in manu, which never happened with rich people, meant she didn't
[22:10:45] +chimechoo: (I keep getting HLd by that lmao)

[22:10:54] @Darth: although it was really, really unlikely that a woman would not marry in manu
[22:11:08] @Darth: because her children would not be part of the husband's family either
[22:11:10] @Darth: which would make 0 sense
[22:11:19] @Darth: Although it did happen, I guess, otherwise we wouldn't have laws about it :P

[22:12:08] @Darth: Important was that the woman's family had to pay a sum of money t othe husban

[22:12:17] @Darth: however, contrary to what you might think, that had a very good reason
[22:12:29] @Darth: See, women could not own thingfs in Rome; the father owned everything, always
[22:12:40] @Darth: so if the husband of the woman died, she had effectively nothing at all
[22:12:54] @Darth: she did not return to her own family, after all
[22:13:19] @Darth: to solve this issue, the original family had to pay a sum of money, what we call a "dos", so that if the woman became a widow she'd have money to use

[22:13:30] %Lux Prima ♮: In some countries and cultures this tradition has only changed slightly, right?
[22:13:35] @Darth: Indeed!
[22:13:39] @Darth: Funnily enough but

[22:13:49] @Darth: the full term is a "dos ex marito" (a sum of money out of a marriage)
[22:13:54] %Lux Prima ♮: That's kinda sad
[22:13:56] @Darth: which, in later latin, became a doarium

[22:14:08] @Darth: and a doarium, if you know etymology, became corrupted into the word we now use
[22:14:10] @Darth: "a dowry"

[22:14:23] @Darth: Dos Ex Marito - > Doarium -> Dowry
[22:14:25] @Darth: fun little tidbit
[22:14:36] @Darth: Anyways, the marriage itself was very different from modern day marriages too
[22:14:46] @Darth: it wasn't just the family or the structure that was fundamentally different
[22:14:55] @Darth: See, romans actually didn't marry at all the way we see it
[22:15:11] @Darth: for us marrying is going to church or the city hall and signing documents/saying yes etc
[22:15:17] @Darth: however for Romans, it was very different
[22:15:34] @Darth: First of all, Romans did have a feast - a Nuptiae. This feast was what we still call a marriage (saying yes, etc.)
[22:15:39] @Darth: however, for romans, it was fairly irrelevant

[22:16:06] @Darth: In order to be married, a Praetor (Judge) had to decide there were 'Affectio Maritalis' (Marital affection)
[22:16:20] @Darth: this basically meant there had to be reasons to assume people were married, among which:
[22:16:23] @Darth: - nuptiae
[22:16:23] Lux Prima ♮:(Private to +Darth) I gtg, but good luck w the rest!
[22:16:27] @Darth: - having kids together

[22:16:29] @Darth: - living together

[22:16:36] @Darth: - being publicly in love

[22:16:58] @Darth: IF a judge judged that there was no Affectio Maritalis, he could actualyl claim the couple had never been married

[22:17:05] @Darth: which nulled the inheritance for the kids
[22:17:12] +chimechoo: But wasn't having children and living together outside of marriage looked down upon?
[22:17:16] @Darth: Yes.
[22:17:27] @Darth: It's not quite as simple sadly
[22:17:36] +chimechoo: So how could the couple do that, in order to meet the criteria for getting married?
[22:17:38] @Darth: See, this issue never came up while people were alive
[22:17:44] @Darth: ah I see your issue
[22:17:49] @Darth: Romans weren't "married"

[22:18:05] @Darth: they entered a matrimonium and if there was affectio maritalis, they were considered married
[22:18:06] @Darth: it wasnt official
[22:18:13] +A Giant Hacksaw: Was there any cases of a peter marrying someone, stealing their possesions, then abondaning them?
[22:18:17] @Darth: so if people lived together, they could be seen as "being married"
[22:18:27] @Darth: Couldn't happen. Very easy to sue.

[22:18:41] +chimechoo: Interesting :)

[22:18:57] @Darth: Romans would just go to a praetor and tell him what happened
[22:19:12] @Darth: and since there'd be no affectio maritalis (as they didnt live together anymore) she'd get her stuff back
[22:19:24] @Darth: rather, since the father owned everything, there was very little to steal to begin with.
flawless creation joined; +Aura Luna left
[22:19:53] @Darth: The important part is that if a couple died (specifically the husband)

[22:20:07] @Darth: the wife would have nothing
[22:20:20] @Darth: and if a judge decided there was no affectio maritalis, she didn't have a family left either
[22:20:31] @Darth: which is why it was important to have AM (affectio maritalis)
[22:20:37] @Darth: now, when did this become an issue:
[22:20:45] #Sundar: rip

[22:21:09] @Darth: If people died, there was an inheritance
[22:21:14] @Darth: this inheritance was good and all but

[22:21:22] @Darth: often brothers of the husband would claim that they hadn't be married
[22:21:25] @Darth: so that the kids couldn't inherit

[22:21:41] @Darth: and then it became a huge legal battle over who gets the inheritance by trying to judge if there was affectio maritalis or not
[22:21:55] @Darth: so it would be asked whether or not they lived together, lolved each other, had a nuptiae, had kids
[22:22:00] @Darth: and then a judge decided.
[22:22:56] @Darth: Now, near the end of the Roman era this changed a lot
[22:22:59] @Darth: and not for the good
[22:23:29] @Darth: in the early medieval era under "ewa" (germanic law) it became very common to just buy a wife
[22:23:48] @Darth: plain and simple, a man would have a sum of money, give it to a family, and get a wife from the family.

[22:24:02] @Darth: Now, obviously this sounds awful (and well, it was)

[22:24:26] @Darth: but women in the germanic era had a lot more freedom and influence than with the romans; marriages were official, they couldn't be kicked out of their home anymore, generally life was better

[22:24:45] @Darth: but at cost of having to be "just a wife" instead of their own person, which obviously is a depressing undertone
[22:25:16] @Darth: to briefly wrap things up, around the 14th century the Church (Canones, Church law) made marrying for love more important, and soon this became a huge reason to marry
[22:25:45] @Darth: and despite a short fallback under Napoleon, who reduced women rights to nearly nothing, marriage nowadays is more of a contract than a fact; and people (hopefully) marry out of love3.
[22:26:03] @Darth: So there you go, a brief overlook at Roman Marriage and the (very short) evolution to modern marriages.
[22:26:08] @Darth: hope at least someone enjoyed.