Since I’m on a legal kick
Posted by CM under Legalese on Tue 1 May 2007
he book I’m working on is not called legalese for nothing. Among other things, there’s an inordinate amount of legalese–and legally related facts–in it. The research makes my head spin.
So today’s post is a random question. I’d like to hear your answers. I’ll answer the question sometime later on this week, but for now, I’d like to hear what you have to say. This is something that has tripped up a number of romance authors, including some who do meticulous research.
As most of you are aware, before the late 19th century reforms, married women had no legal personality separate from their husbands. If she owned property when she married–if she made money while married–it belonged to her husband. Assume we’re in the time period before the reformation of the law.
Could a married woman own separate property?
And now let me rephrase the question: At law, could a married woman own separate property?
*evil grin*









May 1st, 2007 at 7:52 am
Hmmm. Did they have prenups back then?? From reading yesterday’s post, I figure some kind of restriction would have to be in place ahead of the marriage. Or maybe if she outlived hubby and hubby gave *her* the property back in his will?
May 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
I’m not sure I get the question. But I’m on tenterhooks for the answer!
May 1st, 2007 at 9:23 am
Here’s a hint.
I asked two questions, one rephrased.
They’re actually two questions. The answer to one is “yes” and the answer to the other is “no.”
May 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am
BUT I’m not saying which is which.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I refuse to guess on the grounds I that even if I got it right it would only be a wild guess. So tell me, darn it!!!
Alice
May 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
LOL. You’re almost as evil as the rest of the teases ’round these parts. I did google a little bit, but couldn’t learn much without getting a JSTOR account.
I can see, though, that women *did* sue in common law, and I can see that there are differences in ecclesiastic law, common law, and aristocratic custom… Surely the answer is in there somewhere!
Tell, tell, tell. I’m going insane wondering. And if your novel is about a married woman who sues her husband, I want to read it *right now* — what comic and dramatic potential that’s got…
May 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Okay, this is definitely an answer I need as my heroine’s brother is willing her a home (of course unencumbered) in the event that she leaves (physically) her husband. I’m going to say that a woman can own separate property.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Okay, Bev. I’ll tell you this right now.
Your heroine’s brother can’t will the heroine a home, unencumbered, if she physically leaves her husband.
If she physically leaves her husband, her husband will own a very nice home.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
My guess is yes followed by no, simply because it’s counterintuitive that way. I actually have no idea.
(p.s. you’re a winner! come pick your prize!)
May 1st, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Too lazy to research this so I’ll GUESS it may be similar to titles in that from what I’ve read (and have not verified resources) if a woman is of royal descent she retains her title and the husband does not assume one equal to hers if they marry and she can pass her titled on to her daughter. So she may be a countess and he may be a mister. Perhaps property might be retained by a woman under similar circumstances.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Gosh darn it!!! Now I have to rewrite their little scene. What magnanimous offer can he make now. And you know I read that in another published novel, so stupid me I thought it must be legal to do.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 am
Bev: There IS an easy (easier) answer. I’ll explain when I do my next blog post.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
CM — thanks for the research on this. I may never write a historical…but if I do, I’m coming to you with ALL my questions! Evil Grin!
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
No wonder you made me wait for the answer.
Alice