The abduction of Gertrude van Oostkerke
The documents under scrutiny state that Gertrude had been abducted (ontscaect) by Jan. Perpetrators used abduction in the middle ages to force the victim into a marriage advantageous to the perpetrator but unwanted by the victim’s family.
Sometimes a man took a (wealthy) woman by force and tried to get her to agree to marry, and sometimes a man and woman took off together to get married in secret, thereby circumventing parental interference. As the Church considered clandestine marriage valid, a marriage to which both partners agreed could not be broken by parents or anyone else.23 However, to be legal, the clandestine marriage did need to be confirmed afterwards in a church. Late medieval law and justice emphasised the consent of both partners, making it an essential determinant of the legal outcome of an abduction case.24 It is noteworthy therefore that in the case of Jan and Gertrude nothing is said about whether Gertrude followed and married her abductor willingly. The sources do tell us that neither Jan nor Gertrude’s parents were pleased with the scaec. Not only had Jan taken Gertrude away without the consent of her father, but Jan’s father stated that �he was not aware of his son’s plans and that neither he, nor his wife, gave Jan permission for his undertaking’.25 It thus seems that the abduction came as a surprise to both sets of parents.Abduction was considered a serious offence. Marriage was usually a process rather than a single event. There were consultations between families and spouses and discussions within each family, followed by a betrothal, the actual ceremony and a feast. Abduction precluded a �processual marriage’,26 because the abductor often married his victim in a clandestine ceremony, or the families had to make rapid arrangements in order to limit the damage and shame caused by the abduction.27 There were strict laws preventing young people from flouting social norms by abducting.
Two major legal texts on the matter survive in Ghent. The earlier text, the Groot Privilege of 8 April 1297, granted by the count of Flanders, Guy of Dampierre, ordered the abductee to be disinherited.28 Men often abducted rich women to gain wealth and position by forcibly connecting themselves to elite families. The Groot Privilege eliminated this motivation by taking away the property that made the abductee an attractive victim. The disinheritance was not required if her family involved itself and agreed to a reconciliation and her marriage to the abductor. However, in 1438, Duke Philip the Good promulgated a new ordinance after a petition by the city council.29 From now on, cohabiting or marrying one’s abductor was always punished with disinheritance, regardless of a possible reconciliation. The Ghent laws ordered banishment or execution of the abductor.As many historians have noted, there was a significant difference between law and actual legal practice. In fact, in this case Jan was not punished and Gertrude did not lose her inheritance. In practice, Jan may have had to pay a �composition’, a sum paid to escape prosecution, although that is not mentioned in the sources. Given the strategic importance of marriage, choosing a proper spouse mattered greatly in late medieval Ghent, especially for families at the top of the social scale, such as the families of Jan and Gertrude. While normally a marriage took place only after careful consideration, Jan had decided to take his chance by abducting Gertrude and presenting Gertrude’s family and his own with a fait accompli. The abduction likely happened during the spring of 1433 and was followed by an official wedding in a church and a party celebrating the marriage. Some documents state that Gertrude’s father insisted on this official celebration. The proper solemnization by a priest inside or in front of a church in the presence of witnesses transformed the clandestine union between Jan and Gertrude into a legal marriage.
While Simon may not have agreed to the marriage initially, the fact that the spouses were not prosecuted shows that he was at least determined to make the best of it. These events occurred before 1 July 1433, the date when the first verdict in favour of Simon against his son Jan was pronounced (noted earlier). As a consequence of the clandestine marriage, the families did not have time to follow the normal procedure, i.e. to begin discussing the practical aspects of the marriage and arrive at a marriage settlement agreeable to all parties. Typically the couple’s parents or other relatives arranged and concluded marital agreements orally.30 According to Ghent’s customary law, the families had to discuss a marriage gift before the actual marriage in order for it to be valid. Written gift contracts listed all the marital gifts to the couple from parents and families, along with conditional provisions. These wedding gifts should not be confused with dowries. The dotal system did not exist in Flanders, where inheritance law stipulated that all children of the same marriage, regardless of age and sex, received an equal share of the inheritance. The wedding gifts served to enhance the child’s appeal as a marriage partner (if one of the families was richer than the other, for example) and support the young couple at the beginning of their conjugal life.31 Therefore this case offers excellent evidence to explore the tensions between marriage gifts and inheritance practices in late medieval Flanders.In the case of Jan and Gertrude, the marital terms were discussed before they were officially married, as required by customary law. Immediately after the abduction, but before the official wedding in the church, the two fathers and other relatives hastily met in the house of a Christoffels Van Ydeghem in the village of Voorde, located approximately halfway between Oostkerke and Ghent. At this gathering, the couple’s relatives tried to resolve the difficult situation that their children had created and normalise their relationship, as is nicely illustrated by the words Simon van Formelis spoke to Jan van Oostkerke: �And I am happy and I thank God that it is settled and that we are good friends’.32 We only know of this meeting because it was mentioned in a lawsuit brief registered by the aldermen 20 years later, when a conflict arose over the alleged promises made in Voorde.
Although we do not know the precise agreement, according to the 1450 document Simon promised his son 25 pounds groten upon his marriage with Gertrude and another 25 pounds groten after Simon and his wife died. Promising a large sum of money was a typical way to settle a rape or abduction amicably, as is shown by Simon van Formelis’ words to the abductee’s father: �I gave my son more than you gave your daughter […] and I did this for my honour because of the rude act that my son did to you’. By offering money, the abductor’s family might persuade the other family to agree upon marriage instead of going to court.33 Both fathers thus sought to reach a compromise, precisely the type of reconciliation that would be prohibited only five years later in 1438 by the new ordinance of Philip the Good, as noted earlier. However, soon after the wedding a conflict arose between Jan and his father over the wedding gift. This conflict marked the first of the 20 years of disputes in which Jan and Gertrude argued with their parents and parents-in-law about alleged promises of money and sought to annul certain conditions placed on their marriage gifts.
More on the topic The abduction of Gertrude van Oostkerke:
- The abduction of Gertrude van Oostkerke
- Jan and Gertrude before the Ghent aldermen
- The tumultuous history of a marriage settlement
- Gertrude as accuser in turbulent times
- On 1 July 1433 the schepenen or aldermen of Ghent (the main city in the county of Flanders) reached a verdict in a remarkable case.
- Armstrong Jackson (ed.). Cultures of Law in Urban Northern Europe: Scotland and Its Neighbours, 1350-1650. Routledge,2020. — 304 p., 2020
- Notes