Why did women with titles and properties in England want to get married before 19th Century?

Jan 2019
201
Montreal, QC
#71
As to Tudor history, I have read two novels, but you would probably think that doesn't count. As to historical study books, I also read a few chapters though not the full text. I just cannot remember the titles of these books.
Ah, yes, the Tilly trademark. "I've consumed this piece of fiction, so I'm totally qualified to talk about this!" And you can't remember the titles of historical monographs. Were they popular history, or legitimate scholarly pieces? :think:
 
Likes: History Chick

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,524
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#73
As to Tudor history, I have read two novels, but you would probably think that doesn't count. As to historical study books, I also read a few chapters though not the full text. I just cannot remember the titles of these books.
Well then here's your chance. I'm giving you a month off from Historum. Take this time to get academic history books, and actually learn something about history. Then, when and if you return, you will be in a much better position to participate meaningfully in discussions here.
 
Sep 2012
3,716
Bulgaria
#74
If a married woman had a child by a lover, how often would she admit in public that the child was not her husband's? I'm thinking not very often. Catherine the Great was a rare exception.
Idd. Catherine the Great hated her husband so with the help of the nobility she overthrew him and usurped the throne. She had illegitimate children from different men, but as empresses she was beyond any judgement, an autocrat with unlimited power, the mistress of all high-and low-born. I presume Catherine is the she-wolf TillyCaine seeks, along with Empress Maude and Eleanor of Aquitaine.
 
Jan 2015
2,861
MD, USA
#75
I know most such noblewomen did get married, and that's why I asked. It seems to me that they could have chosen a better way of life, and I am puzzled why they didn't do so.
Are you not listening?? There was NO BETTER LIFE. Woman of all classes WANTED to get married and have kids! Marriage gave them security, safety, a place in society, and a chance at happiness. It was their MAIN GOAL. Please explain to us how being alone, insecure, and shunned by all could be "better" in any way, shape, or form?

She could claim her male partner to be her husband without registering their marriage. In doing so she remained legally unmarried and maintained control of her property, while she was married in the eyes of the public so no one would say anything about it.
You're making up even wilder fantasies than usual.

It was not hard to find such a "husband" because there were a lot of eligible bachelors with little wealth to inherit (maybe because his family was poor, or because he had an elder brother) who would like to play such a role in her life, if she paid him well.
So you've got a list of impoverished upper-class male prostitutes? Looking forward to that...

Matthew
 
Likes: Star
Nov 2018
173
Denmark
#76
Although this is an example from Denmark, couldn’t something similar have happened in England?

Rigborg Brockenhuus (July 3, 1579 -September 16, 1641) was daughter of nobleman Laurids Brockenhuus (September 8, 1552 - November 7, 1604)

In 1597, she came to the Danish Queen Anna Cathrine of Brandenburg's service. In 1599, she had to escape from the court with shame when she had become a little too intimate with the king's chamberlain Frederik Rosenkrantz to Rosenvold.

She fled to her mother's sister where she gave birth to a son. Frederik Rosenkrantz had fled to Hamburg but was taken back to Copenhagen on the king's bid. And there were both lovers brought before a judge.

Frederik Rosenkrantz should lose his two fingers and be dishonorable; Rigborg Brockenhuus was to be put in prison for life by her guardian.

The verdict on Frederik Rosenkrantz was changed, however, so that he would go to war in Hungary, where he died a few years later in an accident.

Rigborg Brockenhuus was walled in with a maid, in a room at Egeskov castle and was confined here to her father's death in 1604.

She continued to live at the castle with her mother, but only in 1607 did she get permission to leave the castle to go to the local church.

In addition, before her death, the mother obtained a royal permit for her daughter to partly live in a house in Odense, partly at Nybøllegaard in Hillerslev Parish, which she inherited from her parents; from these two places she was only allowed to enter the local parish church.

The son, who bore his father's family name, later received recognition of the genus Rosenkrantz.
 
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#77
Making a will to exclude the normal rightful heir could be challenged then as it is now. Even then - even with kings - (eg Edward VI) wills could be ignored in favour of the rightful benefactor.

In English history there some contradictory situations. Henry Fitzroy, an illegitimate son of Henry VIII was acknowledged by the king as his son and quite possibly could have gone on to be King. A male son bourne out of wedlock by a woman, even Elizabeth Tudor, could never have been accepted as such
 
Aug 2014
4,232
Australia
#78
Making a will to exclude the normal rightful heir could be challenged then as it is now. Even then - even with kings - (eg Edward VI) wills could be ignored in favour of the rightful benefactor.

In English history there some contradictory situations. Henry Fitzroy, an illegitimate son of Henry VIII was acknowledged by the king as his son and quite possibly could have gone on to be King. A male son bourne out of wedlock by a woman, even Elizabeth Tudor, could never have been accepted as such
This is the rub. All that matters is "what is accepted". If the peers of the realm wanted an illegitimate bastard to be king then they will twist the law to make it happen; fabricating evidence if necessary. They could do the same thing to stop a rightful heir. If you don't have enough support, then you will never rule no matter how strong your claim is. Most problems arise when two claimants have similar levels of support.
 
Oct 2013
13,843
Europix
#79
... woman wouldn't need to worry about this, because a husband couldn't abandon her wife
That's a real gem: "no need to worry" !!!

Her husband had the right and the actual power to take care of his wife "till death took them apart".

Closing her in a tower. Or in a room. Or in a monastery. Or at his mom's castle.

And throw the key.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,983
#80
In the recent movie the "Duchess" set around 1800, the Dutchess had a child by her 7 years younger lover who later became the Prime Minister and an Earl. I guess the Duke was in a different location at the time. The Duke insisted that the child be raised by the real father's family. The Duke and Duchess didn't get along and the Duke was blatantly fooling around. The novel "Lady Chaterley's Lover" is about an upper class woman with a working class lover. The recent movie "Mrs. Brown" is about Queen Victoria's apparent relationship as a widow with a servant. Obviously, there was the publicity about Pricess Diana's various lovers. There were also controversies about kings being legitimate because the father was away at war or something at the time of conception.

The impression I have is that upper class British married men often had mistresses affairs etc., and it was sort of acceptable for their wives to do likewise. Sometimes they would have younger or lower class lovers.

Of course it wasn't acceptable for them to remain unmarried and have illegitimate children.

I am surprised OP is a travel consultant, as she doesn't seem that educated.