Gertrude as accuser in turbulent times
A decade later, Gertrude reappeared as a pursuer in court, no longer as haer sellefs wijf, but again as the legal wife of Jan Van Formelis, indicating that the couple had reunited.
In 1450, the clerk of the aldermen listed the two as a married couple, with no explanation of why (or when) Gertrude and Jan had decided to live together again. However, it seems Gertrude appeared on her own before the aldermen, for the clerk named Jan only as her husband, not as a party in the case.45 Historians have recently reassessed married women’s legal capability, arguing that wives could initiate legal and economic actions as long as these actions served the household.46 Even though Gertrude is described as the initiator of the case, Jan thus indubitably supported her plea. The verdict pronounced by the aldermen on 13 August 1450 was in favour of Gertrude’s claim against her brother-in-law Gerard Van Formelis. In this suit, Gertrude claimed that Gerard should pay Simon’s original marriage gift, the 50 pounds groten he had promised to pay his son. Since Simon had died three years before, the heirs were now dealing with his estate. Now, after Jan had possessed and reaped the benefits of the marriage gift Simon gave him in October 1433 (namely the fief of Sint-Denijs-Boekel given in lieu of a 50-pound groten annuity) for 17 years, Gertrude required that an annual sum of 50 pounds groten should be paid to Jan. What had happened?Times had changed. The city of Ghent had been in revolt against Duke Philip the Good since 1449.47 Tension grew in the city, leading to an open clash between different factions later in 1451. While some of the urban elite joined the Ghent artisans in their revolt against the duke, Steven van Formelis, Simon’s youngest son, sided with the duke, as his father would have expected. As mentioned earlier, this led to Steven’s imprisonment and execution in December 1451.
Steven had slowly but surely become a persona non grata in town, but it seems that Jan, who had always avoided politics, and especially Gertrude were now taking advantage of the current animus towards the family to sue Jan’s brother Gerard. As neither Gertrude nor Jan sided with the Ghent rebels, Gertrude may have been making the best out of changing fortunes. Perhaps she had thought it unwise to charge Gerard shortly after Simon’s death because of Steven’s political power at that time. Thus it seems that she now seized the chance to sue during a moment of political weakness for her brothers-in-law.In court Gertrude argued that Simon had promised Jan the annuity before the marriage took place. Following Gertrude’s abduction, in Voorde Simon had promised to pay Jan 25 pounds groten annually after his son’s marriage and an additional 25 pounds groten annually after Simon’s death. In acts dated 7 and 9 October of that year, Jan and Simon had agreed to commute this gift from an annual payment to property (such as the fief of Sint-Denijs-Boekel). Now, however, Gertrude claimed that these acts were invalid because they violated local custom. There are in fact several cases of the aldermen nullifying marriage gifts after they discovered that the huwelicke voorwaerde (the marriage conditions made up before the marriage) differed from the actual marriage gift.48 However, Gerard countered that it was very strange that Gertrude, who had enjoyed the gift for more than 17 years, had suddenly changed her mind. Referring to the charters of 7 and 9 October 1433, he added that Jan himself had promised never to bring charges over his marriage against his father again and had received extensive gifts shortly after it had been celebrated. The self-confident Gertrude ignored the substance of his counterargument, using (again) the argument that these documents were illegal because she was absent when they were sealed.
What was the outcome of the suit? On 13 August, the aldermen asked Gertrude to prove that Simon had promised the annuity before the marriage had taken place.
Shortly afterwards, Gertrude must have shown the aldermen a charter signed by Simon explaining the exact circumstances of the abduction, the charter quoted earlier as evidence of the details. The aldermen’s verdict on 12 November concludes that the marriage �was contracted between Jan and Gertrude afterwards, and the marriage vows had not yet been made in church when Simon made his promise’.49 As a result, the aldermen allowed Gertrude to proceed with the case. Some weeks later, a heated discussion took place before the aldermen. Among other charges, Gertrude argued that a man was not allowed to nullify huwelicke voorwaerde without the consent of his wife (or vice versa) because of the potential for deceit implicit in such a unilateral decision. Gertrude claimed the wife’s presence in such a case was enshrined in local rights and customs. Although she argued that Gerard should pay the annuity of 50 pounds groten immediately, Gerald did not acquiesce. He fought back against Gertrude’s argument, countering that a husband could obligate the couple without the consent of his wife.50 In their final verdict on 16 March 1451, the aldermen wisely did not accept any of these arguments because local custom was unclear on the topic. They limited the scope of their decision to the chronology of the marriage conditions. They nullified Simon’s marriage gift because he had promised 50 pounds groten before Jan’s marriage had taken place, which invalidated the recorded document of 9 October 1433. As a consequence, the property Jan received at that time was returned to Simon’s estate, which was to be divided according to custom as soon as possible. In short, Gertrude won the case, but her husband lost his property.Unfortunately, we have little information on the final division of the inheritance. The aldermen requested three times that all parties bring in evidence and documents to settle the estate, culminating in a last request on 9 March 1452.
However, a final decision of the case has not survived.51 If the two parties composed a document dividing Simon’s estate, it would be among the thousands of acts registered after the Ghent revolt. Both parties may have fled the city after their last appearance in front of the aldermen in March 1452. Shortly afterwards a battle in Oudenaarde between ducal troops and the Ghent urban militias ended in defeat for the city. For more than a year there was war in the Ghent countryside, until the final victory of Philip the Good in July 1453. Presumably the family settled the conflict some years later. It is clear that Jan remained in possession of the fiefs of Oostkerke and Sint-Denijs-Boekel, because his son Jan junior inherited both fiefs after his father’s death in 1475.52 Ironically, the fief Jan senior had inherited from his own father Simon ended up in the hands of the Borluut family of Ghent after one of his own children was abducted. In 1457 Jan’s eldest daughter Jooszijne was abducted by Lieven Borluut, whom she married �with her consent but against the will of her parents’.53 Perhaps mindful of their own parents’ clemency, Jan and Gertrude did not disinherit their daughter. That is another episode of the turbulent matrimonial history of this remarkable family.