Is it true that trades would be negotiated for marriage rights to woman by fathers and bridegrooms to be? So many oxen for the right to marry A daughter among other things? The legitimacy of marriage and to solidify intention to truly marry as opposed to a more casual relation between parties? I'm fairly sure that has been a long standing custom and even in the USA fathers are expected to "give the ok" for a man to marry a child of thiers.
There are many different customs in cultures where girl-children are presumed to be the property of the father, so that they can be bartered or sold into marriage. However, customs vary as to the degree of consent the girl has, which class or caste of suitor is eligible, who makes the arrangements, whether the prospective bridegroom is consulted or is equally at the mercy of the family or marriage-broker, whether the young couple are allowed to meet for a compatibility assessment... Lots of variables. Yes, it was, according to the patriarchal rule - which goes back to medieval England - over girls: if the father did not give his blessing, you probably wouldn't get the girl. In some families - the most religious, and some of the most prosperous - a father might also forbid his sons permission to marry if he thought they had chosen unsuitable mates.
I heard about this practice about 6 to 7 years ago from a guy over seas. I never much approved of viewing people as property, but I guess it was common enough and maybe still is. It was a property and/or monetary exchange for the right ... The people with money typically got the girl. Old money vs. No money - I suppose it made for a less troubled decision. I wonder how many ended up rewarding for the bride or for the bridegroom for that matter? When money becomes part of the natural selection process, it kinda puts a damper on the common man's hopes I would think. Unless some families didn't practice the exchange traditions, it left a lot of us doing it Darwin style. I prefer Darwin style ... Don't ask me why.
About 10% luck out with a partner who really suits them. A sensitive grandmother or parent or matchmaker would consider more than financial matters - they would try to find compatible young people to pair up - which is not only conducive to the couple's happiness, but is better for their children, the family and the community. Another 60% or so rub along all right, living their polite separate lives, having their separate spheres of operation, sharing the kids and expenses. The next 20% of marriages might be full of discord, frustration and conflict. And of course, the bottom 10% were simply miserable. Sez here, the divorce rate of arranged marriages is far lower than the western variety of infatuation>rushing into wedlock>disillusionment>infidelity>messy legal fights over communal property, children and pets. It’s estimated over half of the marriages worldwide are arranged Humans haven't practiced anything close to natural selection for about 30,000 years. But, of course, it's not so bleak as all that. Very few people in any society were rich enough for money to be a major factor. Most people were more or less poor. For peasants, labourers, soldiers, tradesmen and craftsmen, money played little or no part in choosing or winning a bride - the bride-price and/or dowry would be livestock or household items. They would generally marry within their own class or caste, for various practical reasons - to consolidate small-holdings, expand a cottage business, ingratiate themselves to a master or landlord; more likely, in the hope of gaining another pair of skilled hands, eating well and making healthy children - and quite often, because they were in love.
Anthropologically, the purpose of marriage appears to be a networking function, i.e., the accrual of in-laws. see, Stephanie Koontz, Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage, 2006.
