Royal Marriage in ancient Egypt
It is known that there was no known Egyptian word meaning (queen) in the sense now understood, but the entire royal family revolved around the king's orbit, and they were expressed according to their relationship with him. We find "Mut Nesou" (the mother of the king), or (the queen mother); Hemet Nesou (the king's wife); the "Sent Nsu" (the king's sister); and "Sat Nsu" (the king's daughter). It is worth noting that the title "Hemat Nesou" did not appear except in the Fourth Dynasty, but the expression of the king's wife was the title "She was called a prophet."
But it is not known on what basis the king chose his wives, as there was no clear and specific criterion for this. It is known that the king is a holy person, not like humans; Therefore he had the right to marry more than one wife, which was not common among the common people, and perhaps this was mainly to ensure the successor to the throne. It is clear that the king had every right to choose his wives.
Some scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw that the king was compelled to marry the so-called “heiress” or “hereditary princess” to ensure the legitimacy of his rule, namely his sister or half-sister; Some consider that even if the king is the son of the previous king and his chief wife, he must marry his sister in order to be fully legitimate, and this theory has been largely proven wrong.
It is worth noting that there is no known title denoting the term (the heir) or (the hereditary princess) other than the title: "Irit-A'at", which "Ahmed Abdul Hamid Yusuf" used to translate as (the descendant of the lineage and lineage).
Stone statues of King Amenhotep and Queen Tiye, Egyptian Museum
This title has been proven that many women of non-royal origins carried it, as they were the daughters of regional rulers and senior statesmen.
As for the title (the king’s daughter), it sometimes falls within the titles of some queens, although some think that this title can be given as an honorary title to the king’s granddaughters, or to princesses from the royal family, who are not real daughters of the king from his loins.
When observing the marriages of Egyptian kings since the beginning of the era of the Old Kingdom, we do not find an urgent necessity in marrying a sister to legitimize, on the contrary, there are unions and kinship ties between the kings of the ancient state and between senior statesmen and regional rulers; The most prominent examples of this are what was previously reported about the wives of King vi I, and the mothers of both Mernre and vi II. This can be considered a kind of political intermarriage to ensure the loyalty of these rulers, and to ensure that there are no revolutions.
So there was no urgency in brother and sister marriage in the Old Kingdom, which we consider to be the basis of the ancient Egyptian monarchy traditions. It seems that this belief appeared for certain reasons, including the scholars’ interpretation of the phenomenon of incestuous marriage in ancient Egypt, and their linking between the legend (Iza and Osir) and the legitimacy of the king; As well as the spread of brotherly marriage among the early kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty.
Brother marriage can be considered another advantage of the king, which is his absolute right to marry any woman, even if it is his sister, or half-sister. It is a right of kings, imitating the lords, as well as the availability of a royal princess suitable for marriage in terms of age and acceptance between them, and there is nothing to prevent him from marrying his sister, but this does not mean at all that he marries his sister to become a legitimate king, and whoever does not marry her loses his legitimacy.
As for the second reason for this belief, it is the link between the myth of “Iza and Osiris” (Isis and Osiris) and the legitimacy of the king, as some believe that the king must come from a union between two brothers, as “Hoor” came from the marriage of two brothers, “Osir” and “Eza” His deceased father is considered "Osir", and his mother the queen mother is "Iza" who took care of him and raised him until he ascended the throne of Egypt, which is the "Hoor" of the earth. However, when analyzing this view, we find many gaps. It is clear throughout the ancient Egyptian era that ownership is a hereditary function transmitted through the father to his son, as is the case in most religious and worldly functions in ancient Egypt. Therefore, the main factor in the legitimacy of the king is his father, not his mother, as some claim.
It is worth mentioning here that "Hoor" had claimed his legitimacy and entitlement to the throne of Egypt through his father, not his mother; He did not try to indicate that his right to the throne came to him through her, but rather his mother herself tried to prove his right to the throne of his father. It is also worth noting that "Hoor" in fact did not have a sister to marry.
Some claim that the Egyptian queen is the queen by birth, and the king is the king by the right to marry, "but this is not true in most cases. When looking at many cases of royal marriages, we find the opposite is true, as the king has the right to choose any Egyptian or even foreign girl. For marriage, and as soon as he marries her, she becomes a legitimate queen, and takes all the titles of the queen, except for the title of (the king’s daughter) and (the king’s sister). This is clearly seen in the marriages of King “Amenhet III” and “Ti”, King “Akhenaten” and “Nefertiti”, King “Rameses II” and “Nefertari”, and others who bore the title (the king’s great wife), and were not of royal origin. But upon their marriage, they became legal queens.
Statue of Queen T. in the Egyptian Museum
So the opposite is true; We find that the queen is the queen by the right of marriage, and the king is the king by the right of birth. Perhaps this belief came because in some cases the daughter's husband took over the rule, as in the cases of "Senakh-ka-Ra" and "Tutankhamun". But this was happening in certain circumstances, namely, the absence of a male heir, a son of the deceased king, and the property would then pass to the daughter’s husband as a kind of link between the previous and current ruler.
It is also noted that when there is no daughter, there is no problem in ascending the throne; As the king chooses one of his men he finds suitable to rule Egypt in order to assume the mandate of the covenant. This is clearly evident in the choice of "Hoor Moheb" for one of his chief commanders, "Ramesses I", who founded the Nineteenth Dynasty, and had no actual relationship with the Eighteenth Dynasty in terms of lineage or marriage.
There are many allegations regarding the marriage of the so-called heir, as some claim that the king used to marry the heir, and if she dies, he marries the next in line to keep the throne without regard to the age of the heir, whether she is a baby or old.
When analyzing this opinion, we do not find any practical or factual support for it, as we did not find among the Egyptian kings who married his sister in order to legitimize his rule, and then marry after her death the one who followed her to ensure the continuation of his rule. Had this happened, it would have happened only because the king needed a new wife, not necessarily his sister. Likewise, we do not find at all in the modern state who married more than one of his sisters at the same time.
It has been proven that the ladies of the royal family had married army commanders, provincial governors and senior statesmen. The archeology did not tell us about an Egyptian princess who remained without marriage to ensure that her brother sitting on the throne would continue to rule by marrying him after the death of her older sister. If this were true, we would have found what prevents the marriage of all the king's sisters or all princesses, or we would have found the king marrying all his sisters and princesses of the royal house all at once to ensure his legitimacy forever.
There is a belief that King Amenhetta III and Queen Hatshepsut, who represented their divine birth on the walls of the temples of Luxor and Deir el-Bahari, filmed these scenes to legitimize their rulings. Some claim that King Amenhetta III did this to legitimize his rule, as he was the son of a secondary wife, Mot Um Wea; Which never appeared on the tracks of her husband, King Thutmose IV, and some consider her a foreign wife. In fact, the king’s claim that he was the son of the god “Amun-Ra” does not contain any claim or idea that he lacks legitimacy, as the god (in the sacred marriage between him and the queen) transforms into the form of the earthly king (the father of the depicted king), meets the queen, and places a seed in her The next king, and proclaims him a future king.
Scenes of the divine birth of Hatshepsut
It is noted here that the god has transformed into the form of the earthly king, and he is in fact the god, which proves the theory of taking ownership through the father. As for the mother queen, she is in her earthly form and status as she is, and she did not turn into any goddess or deity to confer any legitimacy on her son. So the king assumes the throne through his father, or say through the idol who incarnated in the form of the father, regardless of his mother and her position, whether she was a royal daughter or was of non-royal origin.
It is noted here that King Amenhetta III did not attempt to claim anything new about his mother, but rather showed her all reverence and respect, regardless of her not being a royal princess.
Also, King "Thutmose III" had assumed the throne of Egypt by claiming the so-called (Prophecy of Amun), in which he claimed that the god "Amon" had chosen him to become king while he was still a child; And if his mere marriage to the one called (the heir) was sufficient to prove his legitimacy, it was sufficient for him to marry his half-sister, Princess "Nefru-Ra" to ascend the throne in peace, but that did not happen. There is great doubt about the marriage of "Nefru-Ra" to King "Thutmose III" She never took the title (King's wife).
The final factor in the scholars’ belief that the king should marry his sister is the repetition of such an act in the early eighteenth dynasty in the marriage of “Saqnun - Ra” to his sister “Ah-hat حت” Ahmose's marriage to his sister, Ahmose Nefertari; And the marriage of "Amenhotep the First" to his sister, "Meritamun the First".
But it must be noted here that this family (and in particular its first kings) had their own circumstances, which cannot be generalized in all cases; The first kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty had married their sisters as a result of several factors, the most important of which was the pride in their victory over the Hyksos, which made the family proud and a strong adherence to its members.
Limestone statue of Queen Tetcheri. Egyptian Museum
As well as the presence of prominent queens such as: "Tetishri", which is considered the grandmother of the modern state; and "Ah-hatti", which is considered the mother of the modern state; And who had their prominent roles and prestige throughout the time of the struggle for independence, and who certainly had their opinions regarding Ahmose's marriage to his sister, Ahmose Nefertari, who also had a role during the liberation wars. This can be seen as a kind of bonding and cohesion between the members of a family that was originally founded for the resistance and the war against occupation.
(Robins) indicates that if the theory of (the heir) is correct, then we will find a continuous line of queens descending from mother to daughter, as we find this line among kings; Likewise, we would find that all kings married their sisters without exception, and that never happened. Therefore, the theory of the heir is not supported by evidence and documents, and there is no trace of it in the traditions of the Egyptian monarchy.
And before we leave this issue we must remember in the end that the king is human, he has emotional tendencies like all creation, and he can live a love story with any girl from the common people of any class, and he also has the right to take her as his wife, and raise her to the status of a queen.
Also, it was not necessarily in all cases the presence of a royal princess to be married by the king, it is possible that he does not have a sister at all, then he can marry whoever he wants, and raise her to the status of queen, so she becomes the legitimate queen of Egypt So there is no logical evidence to accept the theory (the heir).
It has already been said that the king was not like other people with regard to the number of wives, as he was entitled to marry whomever he wanted, and with any number of women. Some claim that the king had legitimate wives, and others who are not legitimate, and here it is necessary to stand in front of the word (legitimacy); As there are those who claim that there is one legitimate wife, and the rest of her is not legitimate, and therefore the children of the second wife were illegitimate.
This is an incorrect belief in ancient Egypt; Through the antiquities, all the wives of kings were equal in terms of the legality of their marriage to him, or even their mere contact with him. There is no title in the ancient Egyptian royal life (legitimate wife), and title (illegitimate wife).
It is true that for every king there was a distinguished wife, who could be considered the first or the eldest, and that she really had a prominent and remarkable role compared to the rest of the king's wives; But this does not mean at all that this queen is the only legitimate wife of the king, and that all others were illegitimate; As the archeology does not give evidence of the difference between two wives other than the title "Hamat Nissu", or: "Hamat Nissu Wert" again. We have already mentioned that the absence of the word "wort" does not mean at all an indication of the illegitimacy of the queen.
There are indeed queens who do not appear prominently in the vows of their husbands, and are known only through the vows of their sons; There are some of them who did not take the title (the king’s wife) except during the reign of her son, and some of them never took the title (the king’s wife) even when her son ascended the throne, and she only took the title of (royal mother).
Thus she may be considered a concubine of the king, but that does not make her in an illegitimate position at all, nor does it make her son an illegitimate son of the king; He ascends the throne in the event that he is the eldest male son of the king, or in the event that there is no male heir to the king other than him. We find among some kings who did not try to give his mother the title (the king’s wife), and were satisfied with the title (the king’s mother), which proves that his position was not affected because she was only a concubine, and that his legal status before his people is fully recognized as the son of the deceased king from his crucifixion, and a king I am on the throne of Egypt.
Also, some interpret the word (sister), which we find abundantly in the Egyptian texts, with multiple meanings, so we find an interpretation of it with the meaning (beloved), or: (dear), or perhaps: (a mistress), and there is nothing to prevent these meanings being the intended here Title (King's Sister). Likewise, it is possible that brother and sister marriage, if it existed in ancient Egypt, could be considered a political marriage just to provide a suitable husband for a royal princess. It does not necessarily take place in a real marriage with her, but rather it may be an honorary marriage, and the king has the right to choose whomever he wants to become his wife.
إرسال تعليق