© Cor Snabel
If a couple went “through the red door” it meant they got married. The
origin of this expression lays in the fact, the Old Church in Amsterdam
used to have a red door, where the bridal couple had to go through.
But in the 16th century most people did not get married in church. In
the presence of family and friends the couple promised each other to be
faithful, a ring was broken in two pieces and each partner kept their
half. This engagement was as good as an actual wedding. The actual
marriage was confirmed by sleeping together; after the wedding night the
wedding party took place.
In 1580 Holland got a protestant government, it was stated explicitly,
that couples had to get married in church or – for non-reformed – in the
city hall. In 1584 they even stated, that couples who married in the
“middle aged” way still had to register.
The promise of marriage was sacred, if a boy and girl promised each
other to get married and one of them declined later on, one could summon
the other party and the Commissioners for Marriage-Affairs would make a
judgement. Parents could exercise their veto against the choice of their
children, but what was considered inappropriate? A marriage, in which
the class difference could be compromising, for instant with a servant,
was impossible. Mixed marriages were not only unconventional but also
illegal, as were marriages with Jews and Muslims.
The average age of the marrying couple was 22 for the bride and 25 for
the groom. In the upper middle class the couples were a little younger.
The life expectancy of the couple was about another 24 years, so it was
unlikely they ever saw their grandchildren. Half of the brides and
grooms had lost their father, mother or both at the moment of their
marriage.
Because the spouses died young, remarriage was very common. A widower
with children could hardly manage without help and because of the
surplus of women he normally had no trouble finding another wife.
But for a widow, especially if she had children, everything was
depending on her attractiveness, not only her looks, but also her
economic attractiveness. A widow with a shop or with money did not have
to worry, but if her husband had been a journeyman or laborer her future
was not enviable. Most of these widows had to appeal to charity in order
to survive.
Although parents allowed their children to select their own partners,
marriages of convenience were also arranged to protect business and
financial interests. In those marriages the financial matters were
regulated in contracts. Sometimes these contracts were very outrageous
and ridicule. When Sara Hinlopen (1660-1749) widow of Mr. Albert
Geelvinck, director of the WIC, remarried Mr. Jacob Henricksz. Bicker in
1695 she had quite some possessions and bonds of herself and her
children. Their contract separated their possessions very strict, in
case of divorce or death only their own blood relations could inherit.
If he should die, a part of his wealth should be put aside as her new
dowry ( ! ) and if Sara should die before Jacob the jewelry, worth 6.000
guilders, he gave her as a wedding present, would be returned to him or
his heirs.
Normally the dowry became collective property, but if the man died, the
widow could reclaim her entire part and was entitled to all she had
gathered during marriage as personal belongings. All the wedding
presents belonged to her; the children could not claim a part of it.
Apart from death, other circumstances could be the reason for the woman
to claim her part of their possessions. If she could prove her husband
was spending their money in an irresponsible way, she could take legal
steps to separate their possessions.
A proper marriage lasted at least three days; a “poor” wedding was a
disgrace. Sometimes a few couples married at the same time in order to
share the costs. But in the circles of the patricians the costs were
enormous. When the young councilor Johan de Witt married a scion of the
wealthy and powerful Bicker family, his father, who came from a more
modest milieu, had to take out a considerable loan in order to pay his
part of the costs.
In 1655 Dr. Tulp and Mayor Bontemantel did get a new law through the
City Council to restrict these extravagant weddings. It was called the
luxury-law, the number of guests had to be restricted to fifty and the
party was only allowed for two days with a maximum of six musicians.
Even the value of the wedding-presents was limited to 5% of the dowry.
But this law did not have any effect, the fine was paid in advance and
the wedding parties were as before.
marks FREE genealogy records.
Find out if your Surname is part of the Our Name in History Collection! Just type your surname into the search box
