Accordingly, without her husband’s express permission, she could not make purchases, enter into contracts or leases, or initiate a lawsuit, even if she had participated in these activities in her own right prior to marriage. The wedding ceremony transformed an active, independent woman, who shared the same legal standing as a man, into a dependent at law.
This fictionalized unity of person was not just a legal construct it had real life implications.
The term “coverture” derives from the legal description of that unification process: a wife was deemed “covered” (protected) by her husband, thus coverte de baron – the use of the term “baron” in this instance was, of course, a recognition of the “natural” hierarchy that existed between husband and wife. Once married, a wife’s legal personality merged into her husband’s: the couple became one person at law, represented in the person of the husband. Inspired by scripture (Mark 10:8, “and the two will become one flesh”), for much of England’s history the law understood marriage as creating a unity of person. The legal designation of femme sole (“woman alone”) made some women an exception to the rule.įor those who are not English legal historians, allow me to explain. He (or she) asked me to insert a reminder to my audience that, when it comes to the law, not all married women experienced the strictures of coverture. When reading over an anonymous reviewer’s comments on a manuscript I was writing on the subject of women’s legal disability in medieval England, I was genuinely surprised by one of the recommendations.
0 kommentar(er)
