WI : Christian-Muslim marriages more common and inheritance accepted

One of the notable points of Medieval dynastic politics is the rarity of marriage between Muslim and Christian monarchs and their heirs. (Note : Rarity, not absence).

I'm quite curious as to what the repercussions would be of not only one, but many marital unions between Christians and Muslims at the royal level, and the offspring inheriting regardless of the faith they choose.

Would it happen? What interesting marital alliances could you see forming? Would there be an emergence of a Christian-Muslim mixed faith / world?
 
Say what? Marry my precious Princess Marie to an INFIDEL? The Pope would not allow it. Catholic reaction

Say what? Marry my precious Princess Yasmina to an INFIDEL? It is against the Koran. Muslim reaction.

Say what? Marry my precious Princess Brunehilda to an INFIDEL? It's against the scriptures ("Be not unequally yoked to an unbeliever) - Protestant reaction

Now, if you could keep religion out of it (stop laughing, it could happen), you've got a TL.
 
Say what? Marry my precious Princess Marie to an INFIDEL? The Pope would not allow it. Catholic reaction

Say what? Marry my precious Princess Yasmina to an INFIDEL? It is against the Koran. Muslim reaction.

Say what? Marry my precious Princess Brunehilda to an INFIDEL? It's against the scriptures ("Be not unequally yoked to an unbeliever) - Protestant reaction

Now, if you could keep religion out of it (stop laughing, it could happen), you've got a TL.

Given that it did happen, those reasons aren't as air tight.
 
I think the most likely way for this to happen would be for there to be a tributary relation between a Muslim and Christian state, where one side enforces marriage policy as a way to ensure loyalty and bind the interests of the two countries together.
 
Trebizond was the poster child for Christian-Muslim marriages; with several princesses married into surrounding Turkish dynasties, and one Emperor of Trebizond married to the daughter of a Turkish noble. The Caucasus as a whole had a relatively high rate of mixed marriages. Both the Christians and Muslims of that region seem to have had a lax and weak theological framework, all the way into the 1800s in some cases.

But much of that can probably be explained by the region's (relative) obscurity and distance from the Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox heartlands. I'm not sure how their situation can be projected onto the whole old world, or if it can be plausibly projected at all.

I mean, religion is important in the middle ages. It can be disregarded only up to a certain point, and a scenario where it barely matters at all sounds pretty anachronistic.

The overwhelming majority of medieval states were not just the monarch's personal property, to be passed down to whoever with a collective shrug. They had an ideology - a set of values and pretensions that gave their rule legitimacy and integrated the court, the elites and society into one vague whole. The ideologies were vague and shifting, different monarchs might emphasize different aspects or tack on new stuff, but some basic principles always applied. And religion - whichever religion it happened to be - was an important aspect of the ideology.

Typically, Christian-Muslim marriages occurred where at least one of the two states had a weak theological framework; and they were often a desperate measure on one side - meant to placate a powerful aggressor, or to acquire an ally ASAP before it gets crushed by a third party. And even places where mixed marriages were more common, like the Caucasus, didn't practice throne inheritance across religious lines. Pulling off a dynastic marriage with an "infidel" is usually hard enough. Having an infidel inherit the throne...kind of cracks the legitimacy of the whole thing. At that point it's not unreasonable to expect the disintegration of the state and/or the revolt of much of society.
 
So what exactly did happen, whenever it happened?
You have also exemples of this among Pyrenean nobility : there's a noble family in Albigès that can trace its ascendency to Muhammad trough seven different lines.
It's not common, but it does seems to happen from time to time, especially in high Middle-Ages in Spain and Aquitaine.

I suspect the reason why it wasn't common in these regions for what matter nobility was because it provided next to nothing when it came to nobiliar clientele and networks (either pretty much local or attempting to get at the next institutional level) compared to union with christian nobles and families.

IIRC, but I could be wrong, you have probably more happenence with non-nobiliar families in Aquitaine or Spain.

@Halagaz got it mostly good, tough.
 
I wonder if a movement could emerge that accepted that all Abrahamic religions were worshipping the same god in different ways.
It was actually more or less acknowledged both by some Christian and (comparatively more) Muslims in the Middle-Ages. Of course, each other at best tought they worshipped him in particularily wrong ways, and the cliché (more found in chivalrous tales than scholarly work) of Muslims being pagans worshipping hellenic Gods or whatnot survived a long time.

But could I refer to you the letter sent by Gregorius VIII to An-Nasir ibn Alannas, Hammamid ruler?

Gregorius, bishop, servant of servants of God, to Anazir, king of the province of Mauritania Sitifiana, in Africa.

Thy nobility sent us this year a letter for we to ordain bishop, along the prescription of Christian law, the priest Servandus. Which did it heartily, because your request seemed fair and excellent to us. You sent to us as well present and, by deference for blessed Peter, prince of Apostles, and for the love of us, you sent back Christians that were captife among you; you did promise as well to send back other captives. It is God, creator of all things, without we can't do anything or even think anything good, that inspired your heart to do this good deed, it is Him, who enlight every man coming into this world, that enlightened your spirit in this intention. As the all-powerful God that wants to save all men and loose none, doesn't appreciate more in us that the love of our neighbours except the love of Him and the duty to not do to someone else what we do not want to be done to ourselves. This charity, obviously, you and us alike, we owe more urgently to other nations, as we acknowledge and profess, in an admittedly different way, the One God, that we praise and worship everyday as creator of the centuries and master of this world. Thus, as the Apostle says, "it is Him that is ou peace, Him that from two made one people".


Since they learnt from us this grace that God gave to you, many Roman nobles admire without limit and celebrate your goodness and your virtues. Among them, two of our familiars, Albericus and Censius, raised with us almost since adolescence in the roman palace, much desire to gain your friendship and affection, and to cordially serve you for anything you'd want on our side. They send you some of their men whom tell you how much they think of you as a noble and wise man, and how much they want and can be in our service. We commend these men to thy Magnificence, in order for you to give all your care to demonstrate, on their behalf, for the love of us and to award their trust who we mentioned above, from this same charity we desire to always give to you and your people.

As God knows very well we cherish you sincerely for His glory and that we want your salvation and youe glory in this present and future life, and by heart and mouth we ask Him that after a long journey into this life, that He lead you himself in the heart of blessing of the most saint patriarch Abraham

In spite of a widespread ignorance about Islam among a good part of Latin nobles, it's thus clair that at least scholars did tried hard enough to understand it (first translation of Qu'ran appears in the XIIth) and not just for pointing and disnouncing it.
 
Another problem was the fundamental difference of the importance of marriage in Europe and the Middle East, marriage and inheritance was limited by class in Europe too, a nobleman marrying burgher his children would belong to the burgher class. While in the Middle East a man could sire a child with a slave and the child would be recognised as his heir. Compare the mothers of the Ottoman sultans to the mothers of European princes. So to make interfaith inheritance between the two faith realistic, you need for the Muslims to have the attitude to class as in Europe.
 
The Trebizondians intermarried with the Ottomans, IIRC. Ottoman sultans had a decent number of Christian wives, though they weren't usually nobility.

There was also Theodora Kantakouzene's marriage to Orhan. Maybe a couple of the daughters of John V too?

You have also exemples of this among Pyrenean nobility : there's a noble family in Albigès that can trace its ascendency to Muhammad trough seven different lines.
It's not common, but it does seems to happen from time to time, especially in high Middle-Ages in Spain and Aquitaine.

Weren't the Banu Qasids tied to the Navarrese by blood and marriage?
 
Practically all the current prominent royal family are descended from Muhammad via marriage in the Iberian peninsula during the 9th and 10th century.
 

Wallet

Banned
Have the Christian state's fail miserably in the crusades. They form alliances with Muslim states in return for allowing Christian pilggrams in the holy land that includes marriages. The Pope allows this in order to secure Jerusalem
 
marriage and inheritance was limited by class in Europe too, a nobleman marrying burgher his children would belong to the burgher class.
I'm not sure the child would have been considered a member of the burgher class... But it's true that most marriage between nobles and non-nobles were often considered morganatic and thus the children of such a union would have had no rights in the succession.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of one getting the possibility to become King: we've had a few bastards that managed to achieve that (like John I of Portugal), so a child born from a morgantic union could also work. The thing is that I have no such examples that come to my mind... Probably because the high nobility tried its best to avoid morganatic marriages, even in the XXth Century (Franz Joseph did his best so that Franz Ferdinand wouldn't marry morganatically).
Have the Christian state's fail miserably in the crusades. They form alliances with Muslim states in return for allowing Christian pilggrams in the holy land that includes marriages. The Pope allows this in order to secure Jerusalem
The only crusade during which the christian really succeeded was the first, the one that established the Crusader States in the levant. The second failed under the wall of Damas, the Third was only half a success as the crusader states were saved but Jerusalem remained in the hands of Saladin, the Fourth went to Constantinople instead of going where it should have, the Fifth was crushed by the Ayyubids, the Sixth was won through diplomacy and not war (and that caused quite an uproar at the time), the Seventh was a failure, the Eigth only opened trade in Tunis and the Ninth basically withdrew before achieving anything... So I don't see how crusader failing would change anything.

The second thing is that I don't see how marriage deals could be made to secure the pilgrimage to Jerusalem... The only example that comes to my mind is Richard the Lionheart's proposal to marry one of his sisters to Saladin's brother at the end of the Third Crusade but I don't think it was done specifically to allow Christians the right to go on a pilgrimmage and even then it didn't happen anyway and yet Saladin authorized Christian pilgrims to go to Jerusalem.
 
Top