In medieval Europe, they believed in men and women choosing freely whom to marry. Among the royalty and aristocracy, since marriage was connected to property and government, marriages were basically arranged. But for the rest of medieval European society, marriages were chosen and freely consented to.
Families were still at the heart of the matter; they made alliances with each other, and property was still at stake. Families did the main choosing, and marrying “to disoblige one’s family” was not much done. In fact, since most wealth was still derived from things, mainly stationary things, not portable property or cash, it wasn’t easy to do it. So girls were asked to consent, and usually they did consent.
To put it another way, they always consented. There are many reasons to consent. Some girls consented to marriage after being locked in their rooms for six months. Some girls consented to marrying their father’s creditor to save the family farm. Some men consented to marry a girl, on threat of being fired and blackballed from further work in their trade if they didn’t (what we might call a “crossbow wedding”).
But unlike societies that considered it unseemly for a girl to meet her husband before the wedding, medieval Europe believed in courtship. In courtship, the man brought the girl gifts and tried to make himself likable. Even before the 14th century’s fashion of romantic love, they considered it a very good thing if the couple actually liked each other. They believed in love, even if it was a practical daily kind of love.
By the late Middle Ages, the diaspora-scattering of Provencal troubadours informed wealthy young ladies that love was only real if it carried no obligation. Although the songs praised adultery, the main popular effect was to raise expectations about courtship.
Marriage was a formal, official financial contract. Promising to marry someone needed to be formal and it was often notarized. This was especially true in Italy, where Roman notary customs had continued almost without interruption. In the later centuries of the Middle Ages (1200+), the Italian custom of notarization became more popular, along with using a name signature instead of a seal.
But verbal agreements to marry were binding, too. As paper was more readily available, local court records became more common and detailed, and some still exist. Many court rolls tell us of disputes in which witnesses were called to tell whether they had heard Richard ask Joan to “live with him,” and whether they understood him to mean marriage, and had she accepted a gift from him in token of acceptance? Even if was done seemingly in jest, it could be held as binding in court.
The man may only have been attempting a seduction in a tavern, but witnesses could repeat what he had carelessly said. Usually the circumstances were such that he had found a richer woman who would have him, and he wanted the girl in the tavern to get lost. But courts could enforce the first verbal contract and forbid the man to go through with marriage to the richer girl.
For this reason, the first step in planning a wedding was to publish the intention to marry. In archaic English, this was called publishing the “banns.” On at least two Sundays before the wedding date, the announcement of intention had to be made publicly in church. This gave the jilted girl, Joan, full notice of Richard’s perfidy and sufficient time to find and bring her witnesses. Was it wise for Joan to force Richard to marry her? Probably not; in our terms, we would see Richard outed as bad husband material. But I think they usually did go on to marry, and it may not always have worked out badly.