When Jane Austen wrote her novel Pride and Prejudice in 1813, the oft-quoted opening (It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife) showed very clearly the position of middle class women at that time.Their future depended on men: husbands if they married, fathers or other male relatives if they did not. When they lived on an entailed estate, it passed to a male relative, however distant, when the father died. Daughters then had to leave their home and move elsewhere.
Jane Austen was lucky, for her brother who inherited the family estate supported his sister financially for a time. She knew all about the difficulties of middle class unmarried women. In spite of the touch of irony, it is a recurring theme in her books. So Mrs Bennett, however silly she appears in Pride and Prejudice, had reason to be concerned about the future of her five daughters. Seen in the light of the customs of nineteenth century England, marriage was for all her girls, save the independent Elizabeth, one of their few options other than being an ‘old maid’.
A ‘good’ marriage was vitally important to them. Few jobs were available other than as a governess. In that position they were neither fish nor fowl; too well-born to be accepted downstairs, too lowly to be welcomed upstairs. Yet even a ‘good’ marriage was no piece of cake. Women could not keep their own money or easily leave their husbands. If they ever managed to get a divorce (a most difficult procedure, needing the help of clever lawyers), they had no automatic right to the custody of their children. This possible deprivation was often used as a threat to recalcitrant wives.
Adultery And Inheritance
The reason for this situation is not hard to seek. Double standards of chastity for men and women were enshrined in the laws which governed marriage and property rights in England until the late nineteenth century and in other parts of Europe until the early twentieth century. Inheritance went through the male line. Unless a baby was swapped at birth, there was no doubt as to who was its mother. For many years royal births had to be witnessed to avoid such a contingency. Blood tests were not used and DNA not yet discovered so there was no indisputable proof of fatherhood.
A wife’s adultery could result in the birth of offspring not fathered by the legitimate husband. Women were therefore made the target of legal constraints. These constraints did not apply to men, for if their adulterous affairs led to unmarried women giving birth, their children were more patently illegitimate. The children could not inherit, though provision might be made for them.
Working class women were not troubled by the laws of inheritance. Marriage usually offered them (as for their richer sisters) the best option. There was no welfare state provision. Jobs paid starvation wages, but that was better than nothing. Without work, the spectre of the workhouse loomed ahead. Organised charity, with few exceptions, was, in the words of J.B. O’Reilly, ‘scrimped and iced in the name of a cautious, statistical Christ’. Marriage then provided a safeguard of some kind.
The possible earning power of a husband gave to his wife and children a degree of security. By contrast a mistress, unless of a rich and very generous man (traits which do not always go together), was in a very vulnerable position, and her children might be even worse off. Until the end of the nineteenth century, 30 out of every 1,000 children still did not survive their first year.