In that day and age, people were regularly married off and bore children in their teen years, so to say "young boys" may be misconstruing the facts a bit.
Are you basing this on specific historical evidence or general assumptions about history? The average age of marriage is often assumed to be a lot lower than it really was by contemporary people (for example, the Elizabethans typically waited until their 20s, when young people were established in life and the woman was more likely to survive childbirth, and I would expect the same socioeconomic and physical factors to apply in the Middle Ages, although I have not gone looking for demographic info there). Childbirth was already very dangerous without putting girls who weren't fully grown physically through it, and teenage boys typically weren't able to financially support a family. Very young marriages have historically been the province of the very wealthy and noble, not the average person who has to worry about learning a trade and obtaining property before having children--although teenagers were also considered adults, albeit young, typically not self-sufficient adults dependent on a master or relative or lord for a while longer. If the Wiki citation is to be believed (I don't have the book), the average age of marriage in Europe from the 13th to 16th centuries was 25, which meshes well with the Elizabethan records I've gone through and makes sense socioeconomically (Schofield, Phillipp R. 2003. Peasant and community in Medieval England, 1200–1500. Medieval culture and society. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. p 98).
(The widespread belief that historical people all got married and had babies in their teens is kind of a bugbear of mine, sorry.)
I also had the impression that speculations as to Richard I being bisexual or homosexual were based on other evidence besides that quote about him sleeping in the same bed with Philip; and whether or not it's provable, I don't think the possibility is "absurd".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-30 07:16 pm (UTC)Are you basing this on specific historical evidence or general assumptions about history? The average age of marriage is often assumed to be a lot lower than it really was by contemporary people (for example, the Elizabethans typically waited until their 20s, when young people were established in life and the woman was more likely to survive childbirth, and I would expect the same socioeconomic and physical factors to apply in the Middle Ages, although I have not gone looking for demographic info there). Childbirth was already very dangerous without putting girls who weren't fully grown physically through it, and teenage boys typically weren't able to financially support a family. Very young marriages have historically been the province of the very wealthy and noble, not the average person who has to worry about learning a trade and obtaining property before having children--although teenagers were also considered adults, albeit young, typically not self-sufficient adults dependent on a master or relative or lord for a while longer. If the Wiki citation is to be believed (I don't have the book), the average age of marriage in Europe from the 13th to 16th centuries was 25, which meshes well with the Elizabethan records I've gone through and makes sense socioeconomically (Schofield, Phillipp R. 2003. Peasant and community in Medieval England, 1200–1500. Medieval culture and society. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. p 98).
(The widespread belief that historical people all got married and had babies in their teens is kind of a bugbear of mine, sorry.)
I also had the impression that speculations as to Richard I being bisexual or homosexual were based on other evidence besides that quote about him sleeping in the same bed with Philip; and whether or not it's provable, I don't think the possibility is "absurd".