Just a thought concerning Lily (Breeding)

[rubyxkelly]

No: HPFGUIDX 96189

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> Chelle wrote:
> > You have to take into consideration that the muggle idea of 'Courtly
> > Love' was still rather new. Love and its theories did not exist
> before the 14th Century. <snipped discussion of arranged marriage>
> > 
> Carol:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this statement or how it relates to HP.
> True, the courtly love tradition is purely medieval, but love itself
> is a natural human emotion that has probably existed from the
> beginning of the species. Greek myth is full of variations on the
> theme of love, as is Greek philosophy. And it's possible for a husband
> and wife to love one another even in an arranged marriage. Love
> sometimes develops from mere proximity, or from shared parenthood. I
> agree that arranged marriages probably occur in the WW, but only
> between purebloods, not between Muggles and Wizards. It's possible
> that the Malfoys had an arranged marriage yet still in their snobbish
> pureblood way love one another and their son. Courtly love, IMO, has
> nothing to do with it, and in any case, the object of courtly love was
> generally a woman married to another man. Apologies if I've
> misunderstood the point of your post.
> 
> Carol

(Sorry_I can't quite think of a way to snip this & make my point)
Regarding the phrase "Courtly Love", I think people misunderstand it. "Courtly Love" was practiced by the European aristocracy around the Middle Ages, seen most notably in the Camelot mythology. 
"Courtly Love", was, in fact, adulterous in nature (and sometimes literally so). A knight would seek the favour of a lady other than his wife; if accepted, he would wear something of hers-a scarf, or handkerchief, etc.-tied on his helm, gauntlet, or other pieceof armour and display it during a tourney. The knight would then be considered the lady's "champion", while she would be his Lady of Inspiration or Queen of Beauty, etc. The knight might be married, but the lady always was. They might not necessarily be lovers in the physical sense; then gain they might. (Some of the best known examples would be Tristan/Tristram and Iseult/Ysolde; and of course Lancelot and Guinevere.) His feats on the tournament grounds would be dedicated to his chosen paramour; his wife would likely have her own champion. Hence, "Courtly Love" was NOT a display of romantic courtship-leading-to-marriage. Rather, it was a display of performing mpressive acts/cheering on impressive acts all for the reason of showing one's "nobility" by showing willingness to perform acts/give favour to someone one had no LEGAL obligation to.
The husbands and wives involved generally seemed to see this as proof of the worth of their spouse in material terms-something to be proud of, rather than jealous of (and with some exceptions, espcially if one's spouse WAS involved sexually with their "consort"...and most ESPECIALLY if that liason was not conducted discreetly but instead in an overt and publicly known way.
This humialition was percieved as much worse than the actual affair since it stripped the spouse of the ability to boast of the wife's attractionas a Queen of Beauty or a husband's prowess as a Knightly Champion.It's useful to remember that the married couples would have been the product of arranged marriages; as long as they performed the duties required by thise mostly business arrangement (producing heirs and attending to the business of marrried life) the rowess or attraction of one's spouse would have been thought of as a benefit to increase in social standing. Overlooking quietly carried-out love affairs was not hard since the couples would not have been insulted by the idea of "outside activity" as it would not have been taken as a personal affront-indeed, the spouses might well have "cared" for each other, been friends and partners, but probably not romantic lovers...and there would have been no question of losing your spouse since divorce was well-nigh impossible.
Another factor would have been that "young marrieds"-anywhere from the ages of 12-13 and up-would not have attended court functions until they were 18-22, since their behaviour would have been expected to be mature. By then, a young couple would very likely have had children and needed time lso in setting up a household of their own. Any children that came along later would have been considered the husband's (and considering the importance of male heirs to retain property, and females to make alliane or increased social standing/wealth by marrriage, coupled with the high infant mortality rate (getting the kid past 2-3 was the key), it's a logical and pragmatic approach. There were evidently more than a few instances of an older man, widowed and perhaps more than once, who seem to have encouraged a much-younger wife to become a knight's lady...and was "rewarded" with children as a result. There also seem to have been cases of the reverse, where a woman (erhaps previously widowed, or perhaps having reached an "older" age of, say, 25+) in a childless marriage miraculously "became pregnant" and "retired to the country" with her husband's "lady" in accompaniament then produced the desired-and REQUIRED-child (and sometimes this hapened a couple of times, especially with owners of very large estates and proerties).
Of course, there were also no doubt Courtly lovers who practiced birth control (yes, there WAS such a thing though the upper classes tnded to not use it as children were a very valuable commodity); ones who would have avoided sex that resulted in pregnancies; and of course some who were NOT involved sexually.
Hence, when people refer to "Courtly Love" what they are really talking about is the modern, "marry-for-love" rather than to insure some kind of material benefit. 
KAT/rxk