Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800
In the eighteenth century, the condition of English wives under ‘coverture’ was both defended as one of privilege and attacked as worse than slavery. This article suggests that married women were not in reality confined within coverture’s regulations on credit and property ownership. Their economic...
| Format: | Journal article |
|---|---|
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2002
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1797057547178344448 |
|---|---|
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In the eighteenth century, the condition of English wives under ‘coverture’ was both defended as one of privilege and attacked as worse than slavery. This article suggests that married women were not in reality confined within coverture’s regulations on credit and property ownership. Their economic activities were fairly broad and flexible and they had an instinctive sense of possession over some goods during wedlock, perceiving their contributions to marriage as a pooling of resources for familial benefit. It will be suggested that wives did not necessarily think that their conduct in acting as if some marital property was legally theirs was illegitimate, because it was facilitated by coverture and the legal devices that allowed it to function. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T19:37:59Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:1fb06fca-b2ed-4e25-afe6-8808607c6384 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T19:37:59Z |
| publishDate | 2002 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:1fb06fca-b2ed-4e25-afe6-8808607c63842022-03-26T11:23:18ZFavoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:1fb06fca-b2ed-4e25-afe6-8808607c6384Modern HistoryOxford University Research Archive - ValetCambridge University Press2002In the eighteenth century, the condition of English wives under ‘coverture’ was both defended as one of privilege and attacked as worse than slavery. This article suggests that married women were not in reality confined within coverture’s regulations on credit and property ownership. Their economic activities were fairly broad and flexible and they had an instinctive sense of possession over some goods during wedlock, perceiving their contributions to marriage as a pooling of resources for familial benefit. It will be suggested that wives did not necessarily think that their conduct in acting as if some marital property was legally theirs was illegitimate, because it was facilitated by coverture and the legal devices that allowed it to function. |
| spellingShingle | Modern History Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 |
| title | Favoured or oppressed? Married women,
property and ‘coverture’ in England,
1660–1800 |
| title_full | Favoured or oppressed? Married women,
property and ‘coverture’ in England,
1660–1800 |
| title_fullStr | Favoured or oppressed? Married women,
property and ‘coverture’ in England,
1660–1800 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Favoured or oppressed? Married women,
property and ‘coverture’ in England,
1660–1800 |
| title_short | Favoured or oppressed? Married women,
property and ‘coverture’ in England,
1660–1800 |
| title_sort | favoured or oppressed married women property and coverture in england 1660 1800 |
| topic | Modern History |