Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Married woman's property

Options
  • 24-06-2020 10:05pm
    #1
    kildarejohn
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭


    Google tells me that an Act of 1882 allowed Married Women to own property in their own right.
    But I am wondering was this normal practice in 1920? I was browsing local newspaper archives, and was surprised to see an ancestor's family pub advertised for sale in 1920 "on the instructions of Mrs.X", when Mrs.X had been married to Mr.X since c.1914. Would it have been more usual for the add to say "on the instructions of Mr.X".


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It was rather common for women to hold a publicans licence by then and I would imagine quite a few of them were married. If the licence was in her name, he couldn't sell it.


  • Options
    #3
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,282 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    That would depend on who wrote, placed and paid for the ad. :)

    While there were lots of stupidity, women weren't completely dis-empowered.

    That said, in the early 1990's, my mother was still getting post addressed to Mrs. [Father's Firstname] [Surname].


  • Options
    #4
    kildarejohn
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭kildarejohn


    L1011 wrote: »
    It was rather common for women to hold a publicans licence by then and I would imagine quite a few of them were married. If the licence was in her name, he couldn't sell it.
    The licence would have been in her name, as the pub was inherited from her parents. Perhaps it was just too much trouble to transfer the licence from the wife's name to the husband, especially given the turbulent political times.


  • Options
    #5
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It would have legally had to be transfered to her name and then renewed annually - she probably did actually own/run the pub


  • Options
    #6
    KildareFan
    Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭KildareFan


    I've been tracking through the Memorials of Deeds for the last few years and have come across deeds where widows or spinsters leased or sold property.

    Married women generally were not legally entitled to own property in their own right until 1882, however the practice of the husband owning all the money and the property continued into living memory. When my parents married in the 1950s, their house was bought in my father's name only, even though my mother contributed to the deposit - my father used to say to my mother, 'what's yours is mine, and what's mine is my own' so how he survived until he was 96, I don't know.

    I've seen marriage settlements from the 1700s in the Memorials of Deeds where the bride's parents provided a marriage portion for her own use free of encumbrance from her husband and not to be used to pay his debts; usually a male was appointed trustee to protect the arrangement.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    kildarejohn
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭kildarejohn


    KildareFan wrote: »
    I've been tracking through the Memorials of Deeds for the last few years and have come across deeds where widows or spinsters leased or sold property....

    I've seen marriage settlements from the 1700s in the Memorials of Deeds where the bride's parents provided a marriage portion for her own use free of encumbrance from her husband and not to be used to pay his debts; usually a male was appointed trustee to protect the arrangement.

    Just came across a Memorial of a Deed from 1813 where the wording seems to go to extreme length to emphasise the independence of the woman - "for her said Deborah's sole and separate use free from and independent of the management or interference in any way whatsoever of her said husband or any future husband she might thereafter have and not to be liable for the debts or incumbrances of her said present or any future husband .... for such use intents and purposes only as the said Deborah shall order ... notwithstanding her Coverture ..."
    I wonder does this lengthy legal wording indicate that this Deborah was particularly independent minded, or was this just standard "legalise" of the time?


  • Options
    #8
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Seems elaborate even for legalese.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #9
    Mick Tator
    Registered Users Posts: 654 ✭✭✭Mick Tator


    kildarejohn wrote: »
    Just came across a Memorial of a Deed from 1813 where the wording seems to go to extreme length to emphasise the independence of the woman - "for her said Deborah's sole and separate use free from and independent of the management or interference in any way whatsoever of her said husband or any future husband she might thereafter have and not to be liable for the debts or incumbrances of her said present or any future husband .... for such use intents and purposes only as the said Deborah shall order ... notwithstanding her Coverture ..."
    I wonder does this lengthy legal wording indicate that this Deborah was particularly independent minded, or was this just standard "legalise" of the time?
    In my view much would depend on the status and wealth of the families involved. I would guess that in 1813 Deborah, independent or otherwise, had little to do with it; she might have made her point, but her father or brother would have been her representatives and the grooms father/brother respectively negotiating her dowry/marriage portion and also her ‘dower’ i.e. the financial support in the event that she should become widowed.

    It was a common law principal alongside primogeniture (all wealth going to the eldest son) and coverture (marriage voided a wife’s separate legal identity). The husband also was responsible for the debts incurred by the wife and newspaper adverts were published (see below). In the event that the bride was from a wealthier background or her groom was a known gambler or had less means, the bride’s side would try their hardest to see that she was protected financially. During the 1800’s a series of Married Women’s Property Acts attempted to redress ‘coverture’ by granting a married woman the legal status of a single woman (“feme sole”).

    This was in the Kerry Examiner in 1843:-
    Notice - Whereas my wife Julia Kelly alias Sullivan has absconded or eloped from me without cause or reason I do hereby CAUTION the public not to give her credit, as I will not be accountable, after this notice for any debts she may contract in my name.


  • Options
    #10
    KildareFan
    Registered Users Posts: 683 ✭✭✭KildareFan


    <"for her said Deborah's sole and separate use free from and independent of the management or interference in any way whatsoever of her said husband or any future husband she might thereafter have and not to be liable for the debts or incumbrances of her said present or any future husband .... for such use intents and purposes only as the said Deborah shall order ... notwithstanding her Coverture ..."
    I wonder does this lengthy legal wording indicate that this Deborah was particularly independent minded, or was this just standard "legalise" of the time? >

    I've come across this type of provision in numerous marriage settlements. Looks like the more money/property the bride's family had, the more concerned they were to protect her money and her children from a feckless husband. They weren't going to risk the bounder spending all her money and then sending her back to her family to support.


Advertisement