A woman’s ability to hold and control property determines her social status.
In England it was possible for women to inherit property and titles, and heiresses were not dispossessed at marriage. Their husbands were expected to share in the control of their estates and the heiresses no longer controlled them exclusively, but they did not legally lose control or ownership.
Women might, of course, “bow to their husbands' wishes” for the sake of domestic harmony or be otherwise coerced or cajoled into granting their husbands more control than was legally required, but stronger women knew how to keep their husbands in their place.
Geoffrey d’Anjou never titled himself “King of England.” Eleanor of Aquitaine took the Aquitaine back when she divorced Louis VII. Joan, Countess of Kent, did not bestow the honor of Kent on any of her three husbands; she retained it and passed it to her sons.
Heiresses, furthermore, were not found only in the aristocracy; peasant and merchant daughters also had the right to inherit their estates, provided they had no brothers. Indignation over the fact that boys inherited first should not blind us to the more important fact that because girls could inherit, some girls held very powerful positions indeed.
A dowry was not an inheritance. It was, however, property that a maiden took with her into her marriage. A dowry, however, was never a girl’s property. It was property that her father/brother/guardian owned but agreed to transfer to a girl’s husband at her marriage.
In the Middle Ages, dowries were usually land. Royal brides brought entire lordships into their marriage (e.g. the Vexin), but the lesser lords might bestow a manor or two on their daughters and the daughters of gentry might bring a mill or the like to their husbands. Even peasant girls might call a pasture or orchard their dowery. With time dowries were increasingly monetary, either a lump sum paid at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom or a fixed annual income paid by the bride’s guardian (or his estate) to the husband. The key thing to remember about dowries, however, is that they were not the property of the bride. They passed from her guardian to her husband.
Dowers on the other hand were women’s property. In the early Middle Ages, dowers were inalienable land bestowed on a wife at the time of her marriage. A woman owned and controlled her dower property, and she retained complete control of this property not only after her husband’s death, but even if her husband were to fall foul of the king, be attained for treason, and forfeit his own land and titles.
In the early Middle Ages, dowers were usually negotiated in advance of a marriage. Generally the father of the bride and the father of the groom would negotiate both the size and nature of the dowry and the dower at the same time. In short, the father of the bride would agree to transfer certain properties or a combination of properties and money to the groom at the marriage, and in exchange the father of the groom would designate properties as the new bride’s dower. These could, obviously, be identical. I.e. the father of the bride might agree to transfer certain properties to the bridegroom on the condition that they were designated his daughter’s dower, i.e. they were effectively transferred not to the control of the groom but to the bride after her marriage. Formally, however, the groom bestowed the “dower” on his wife at the church door immediately after marriage, and its size was variable.
In the absence of a formal agreement, however, English law came to recognize the right of every widow to one third of her late husband’s property. In this case, it fell to the husband’s lord (for barons, the crown) to determine exactly which pieces of property made up the dower portion after her husband’s death. Theoretically, the husband’s overlord was supposed to make this determination within forty days, but reality sometimes looked different. English judicial history is full of cases where tenacious widows litigated for decades to get their rights, an indication that justice was not always served rapidly, but also that women felt sufficiently protected by the law to take their case to court. The exception here was in the case of the widows of executed traitors. Whereas the older custom of designating the dower at the church door protected the widows of traitors, the idea that the dower was simply one third of a man’s estate at death meant that it was de-facto forfeited to the crown with the rest of a traitor’s lands, and his widow was left empty-handed.
This change in the nature of dowers may explain the increasing popularity of “jointures.” Jointures were not strictly women’s property as they were (as the name suggests) bestowed jointly on a couple at marriage. Nevertheless, the effect of jointures was to protect women financially. Property that was part of a jointure was controlled jointly so long as both partners lived, but became the sole property of the surviving partner at the death of the other. For men, that was nothing new, but for women it meant that in addition to the third of her husband’s estate that made up her dower portion, she had control of all her “jointure” lands. Furthermore, land held via “jointures” could not seized by the crown if either partner were convicted of treason; it remained the property of the survivor (usually the widow).
It was not uncommon in the High Middle Ages for women to successively marry two, three or even four husbands. After each marriage, the widow retained her dower and any jointures settled on her at the time of the marriage. Women who were politically well-connected, already wealthy and/or knew how to negotiate could therefore accumulate vast estates. “Dowagers” controlling these estates were not only wealthy and independent, they were influential and powerful -- at least within their family circles. They often controlled the income, marriages and dowries of their off-spring.
Property rights of medieval English women: Dowries, Dowers and Dowagers
http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2015/09/of-dowries-dowers-and-dowagers.html .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry#England .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dower#England_and_other_Common_Law_Countries .
Women: Single, wed, widowed, working
Singlewomen and Widows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_singlewomen
Widows
The life of a widow often offered more opportunities than the life of a married woman. In many cases, she was permitted to continue her husband's business if she was previously trained in the trade. She was then permitted to employ up to two apprentices and oversee their training herself and confer guild status on her next husband provided he worked at the same craft. Listed in the records of The Company of Soapmakers of Bristol are entries such as:
'The Wiiddowe Dies took to prentice Michaell Pope the Son Richarde Pope of Bristeltowe for the terme of VII yeares begininge the III of October 1593'
and also among the records...
'We reserved into the fellowship of Sopmaken and changleng Richard Lemwell for that he sarved his Apprentisshipe with Alice Lemwell wedow to sopemaken and changlyng'
A widow who was wealthy and of sufficient social standing naturally attracted the attention of noblemen hoping to utilise her assets to improve his own position. Widows of sufficient means or with a large inheritance or with strategic land holdings might be put under the king's 'protection'. The Register of Rich Widows and Orphaned Heirs and Heiresses of 1185 shows that many were married 'in the king's gift'. Essentially, the king was within his right to grant the widow in marriage to whomsoever he pleased.
It was possible for a widow to avert a match she wished to avoid by buying her way out of such an agreement, however it was not uncommon that the price to do so was extremely high and would cost the widow the means to support herself afterwards, thus making it impossible for a woman to free herself. In many cases, it left her with little choice but to comply, unless she took 'the mantle and the ring' and became a vowess dedicating her life to the service of God and promising to remain chaste.
https://rosaliegilbert.com/deaths.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages#Widowhood_and_remarriage
Christine Pisan spoke about other issues that resonate today: lack of access to education for women, the disappointment women sometimes feel at the birth of a daughter, the accusation that women invite rape, the idea that women can be pretty and enjoy fine clothes without forfeiting their title to chastity, violence in marriage, drunken beatings, and spendthrift husbands (Sunshine for Women). She defended women when no one else dared or even thought of doing so. Such insight and bravery exhibit her strong feminist leanings. However, similarly to the relational feminists, she did not want equality for the sexes and “did not advocate the eligibility of woman for every position commonly held by men” (Richardson 29). She believed women should stick to the roles dictated to them and do them well, unlike today’s feminists who believe women can do anything.
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/spring02g/paper1-latestcopy-edited.htm
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/spring02g/BookoftheCityofLadies.htm
Singlewomen and Widows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_singlewomen
Widows
The life of a widow often offered more opportunities than the life of a married woman. In many cases, she was permitted to continue her husband's business if she was previously trained in the trade. She was then permitted to employ up to two apprentices and oversee their training herself and confer guild status on her next husband provided he worked at the same craft. Listed in the records of The Company of Soapmakers of Bristol are entries such as:
'The Wiiddowe Dies took to prentice Michaell Pope the Son Richarde Pope of Bristeltowe for the terme of VII yeares begininge the III of October 1593'
and also among the records...
'We reserved into the fellowship of Sopmaken and changleng Richard Lemwell for that he sarved his Apprentisshipe with Alice Lemwell wedow to sopemaken and changlyng'
A widow who was wealthy and of sufficient social standing naturally attracted the attention of noblemen hoping to utilise her assets to improve his own position. Widows of sufficient means or with a large inheritance or with strategic land holdings might be put under the king's 'protection'. The Register of Rich Widows and Orphaned Heirs and Heiresses of 1185 shows that many were married 'in the king's gift'. Essentially, the king was within his right to grant the widow in marriage to whomsoever he pleased.
It was possible for a widow to avert a match she wished to avoid by buying her way out of such an agreement, however it was not uncommon that the price to do so was extremely high and would cost the widow the means to support herself afterwards, thus making it impossible for a woman to free herself. In many cases, it left her with little choice but to comply, unless she took 'the mantle and the ring' and became a vowess dedicating her life to the service of God and promising to remain chaste.
https://rosaliegilbert.com/deaths.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages#Widowhood_and_remarriage
Christine Pisan spoke about other issues that resonate today: lack of access to education for women, the disappointment women sometimes feel at the birth of a daughter, the accusation that women invite rape, the idea that women can be pretty and enjoy fine clothes without forfeiting their title to chastity, violence in marriage, drunken beatings, and spendthrift husbands (Sunshine for Women). She defended women when no one else dared or even thought of doing so. Such insight and bravery exhibit her strong feminist leanings. However, similarly to the relational feminists, she did not want equality for the sexes and “did not advocate the eligibility of woman for every position commonly held by men” (Richardson 29). She believed women should stick to the roles dictated to them and do them well, unlike today’s feminists who believe women can do anything.
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/spring02g/paper1-latestcopy-edited.htm
http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/tempmotherhood/spring02g/BookoftheCityofLadies.htm
Sex, enclosure, scandal in medieval nunneries
http://www.medievalists.net/2012/04/sex-enclosure-and-scandal-in-medieval-monasteries/ .
Nuns to Abbesses: convents, cells, enclosure, sex, scandal
http://www.medievalhistories.com/women-in-the-medieval-monastic-world/
http://www.medievalhistories.com/women-in-the-medieval-monastic-world/
Get thee to a nunnery! Swynford and Chaucer
It was quite common in the earlier part of the Middle Ages for a parent to dedicate a baby or a young child to holy orders. These children were called oblates because the child was offered to God with an altar cloth wrapped around their right hand – an oblation or offering.
Prior to the invasion of 1066 William, duke of Normandy, and his wife Matilda sent their daughter Cecilia into the noviciate at the abbey of Holy Trinity in Caen. The date is significant – 18 June 1066. She didn’t become a fully professed nun until 1075 when she was about nineteen or twenty.
It’s easy to speculate that Cecilia was offered in exchange for a successful invasion. Equally many parents gave their child as an offering in hope of heavenly brownie points. It should also be added that if you were a man with many daughters and insufficient lands you might be tempted to palm the plainest or least marriageable daughter off on the Church to avoid all the expenditure that accompanied nuptial arrangements. Until the rule of Innocent III (1198-1215) children who were given to the Church had no power to quit the religious life once they grew up. This could lead to unfortunate incidences of runaway or pregnant nuns not to mention nuns like Chaucer’s abbess who dressed well and kept pets.
1349 Katherine Swynford’s eldest daughter Margaret along with her cousin Elizabeth Chaucer entered the nunnery at Barking when they were children. It is possible that Katherine Swynford and Philippa Chaucer were following family tradition in dedicating a daughter to the Church because evidence suggests that the pair had an older sister (probably a half sibling) called Elizabeth or possibly Isabelle who entered the nunnery of St Wandru in Mons in 1349.
1381 Elizabeth Chaucer entered the nunnery in 1381 following nomination by Richard II – demonstrating the influence of Katherine by this time. Elizabeth had previously been lodged in the convent of St Helens in Bishopgate. We know that John of Gaunt paid her admission fee – in lieu of a dowry. It was a large sum- £51 8s 2d. This in its turn has given rise to the rumour that Philippa may have had an affair with the duke of Lancaster and that Elizabeth was his daughter. As Weir points out, Gaunt acknowledged his other illegitimate children and provided for them handsomely so why would he be furtive about Elizabeth, if she was indeed his?.She also notes that the care given by Gaunt to members of his household was generous so there should be no raised eyebrows about the gift, although of course Auntie Katherine may have had a hand in it so that her own daughter would have, at least, had the company of a cousin. Margaret went on to become the abbess of Barking in 1419.
The abbess of Barking had the legal status of a baron- a reminder that for women the Church was more or less the only way to wield power in your own right so long as you made it to the top of the job ladder. Margaret Swynford is recorded as dying in 1433.
Weir speculates as to whether Sir Hugh and Katherine Swynford might have had other children. She notes that there was a Katherine Swynford at Stixwold Priory in 1377. However, other than the name and the fact that it is just possible that the traditionally accepted marriage date for Hugh and Katherine is wrong there is no evidence that this particular Katherine was a member of our Katherine Swynford’s immediate family. Also Barking was a prestigious location. It would be here that Jasper and Edmund Tudor were sent after their mother’s death. By contrast Stixwold was rather impoverished.
It was quite common in the earlier part of the Middle Ages for a parent to dedicate a baby or a young child to holy orders. These children were called oblates because the child was offered to God with an altar cloth wrapped around their right hand – an oblation or offering.
Prior to the invasion of 1066 William, duke of Normandy, and his wife Matilda sent their daughter Cecilia into the noviciate at the abbey of Holy Trinity in Caen. The date is significant – 18 June 1066. She didn’t become a fully professed nun until 1075 when she was about nineteen or twenty.
It’s easy to speculate that Cecilia was offered in exchange for a successful invasion. Equally many parents gave their child as an offering in hope of heavenly brownie points. It should also be added that if you were a man with many daughters and insufficient lands you might be tempted to palm the plainest or least marriageable daughter off on the Church to avoid all the expenditure that accompanied nuptial arrangements. Until the rule of Innocent III (1198-1215) children who were given to the Church had no power to quit the religious life once they grew up. This could lead to unfortunate incidences of runaway or pregnant nuns not to mention nuns like Chaucer’s abbess who dressed well and kept pets.
1349 Katherine Swynford’s eldest daughter Margaret along with her cousin Elizabeth Chaucer entered the nunnery at Barking when they were children. It is possible that Katherine Swynford and Philippa Chaucer were following family tradition in dedicating a daughter to the Church because evidence suggests that the pair had an older sister (probably a half sibling) called Elizabeth or possibly Isabelle who entered the nunnery of St Wandru in Mons in 1349.
1381 Elizabeth Chaucer entered the nunnery in 1381 following nomination by Richard II – demonstrating the influence of Katherine by this time. Elizabeth had previously been lodged in the convent of St Helens in Bishopgate. We know that John of Gaunt paid her admission fee – in lieu of a dowry. It was a large sum- £51 8s 2d. This in its turn has given rise to the rumour that Philippa may have had an affair with the duke of Lancaster and that Elizabeth was his daughter. As Weir points out, Gaunt acknowledged his other illegitimate children and provided for them handsomely so why would he be furtive about Elizabeth, if she was indeed his?.She also notes that the care given by Gaunt to members of his household was generous so there should be no raised eyebrows about the gift, although of course Auntie Katherine may have had a hand in it so that her own daughter would have, at least, had the company of a cousin. Margaret went on to become the abbess of Barking in 1419.
The abbess of Barking had the legal status of a baron- a reminder that for women the Church was more or less the only way to wield power in your own right so long as you made it to the top of the job ladder. Margaret Swynford is recorded as dying in 1433.
Weir speculates as to whether Sir Hugh and Katherine Swynford might have had other children. She notes that there was a Katherine Swynford at Stixwold Priory in 1377. However, other than the name and the fact that it is just possible that the traditionally accepted marriage date for Hugh and Katherine is wrong there is no evidence that this particular Katherine was a member of our Katherine Swynford’s immediate family. Also Barking was a prestigious location. It would be here that Jasper and Edmund Tudor were sent after their mother’s death. By contrast Stixwold was rather impoverished.
Subjugation of women:
Over the centuries, countless women in the Christian West have been defined by appearance or attire and have been variously objectified by those in authority over them.
Among these countless women, there is a particular group called “anchorites” (anchorites could be men, but were more frequently women). Anchorites, who were very common in England in the Middle Ages, were people who wanted to live lives of Christian prayer and extreme devotion to God. In order to do this, they allowed themselves to be permanently enclosed in small rooms (called “cells”) adjoining their local church and vowed themselves to a life of chastity and penance. Their enclosure began when they were literally bricked into their cells, and was meant to continue until the moment of their death. In fact, we have quite a few records of anchorites being buried within their own cells.
Among these countless women, there is a particular group called “anchorites” (anchorites could be men, but were more frequently women). Anchorites, who were very common in England in the Middle Ages, were people who wanted to live lives of Christian prayer and extreme devotion to God. In order to do this, they allowed themselves to be permanently enclosed in small rooms (called “cells”) adjoining their local church and vowed themselves to a life of chastity and penance. Their enclosure began when they were literally bricked into their cells, and was meant to continue until the moment of their death. In fact, we have quite a few records of anchorites being buried within their own cells.
