>>104210566Her privileged position in the feudal hierarchy means her life is an important part of national diplomacy. Nobody in the Medieval nobility married because they liked someone, let alone found them the most preferential partner for their personal traits.
Nobles were routinely married to people they never heard of in countries they did not speak the language of.
Because these marriages were political assets deemed more important than who you may like.
You project a modern sentiment from the perspective of a liberal, constitutional democracy into the feudal system.
But you forget that these personal bonds were all that would stand between say a unified Spain and endless war between the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon.
For nobility, the personal was not only political, it was politics. If you personally transgressed against societal standards or contracts, you could destabilize the realm, get excommunicated (and make your entire realm the target of every Catholic neighbor), break an ancient alliance or invite the recipient of an insult to declare war against you, lest they lose prestige among their peers and become a target themselves.
I'm certain few old men were delighted to be expected to bonk uglies with some random highlands tart they never met to produce an heir because their wife and children got murdered by a random robber band in the next guy's lands.
Having to fuck in order to maintain orderly succession was the one thing that made monarchy tick and the thing that could break it.
Unclear succession and infighting were the worst thing to happen to your country since forever. Not just for the nobles, but also the peasantry. That was what shattered nations and sparked civil wars, even international succession crises that drew in great powers.
Not getting to marry whoever was the one price royalty always had to pay. But it wasn't as though the common people historically just had free choice or married for love, either.
