British freewomen : $b Their historical privilegeStopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
History
British freewomen : $b Their historical privilege
Stopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
Women -- Great Britain; Women -- History
THE relation between property and privilege has been the determining
principle in Constitutional Evolution, and the distinction between the
sexes in the matter of Property has been the radical cause of the
distinction between them in regard to Privilege. It is necessary to
trace this. The custom of Military Tenure made male heirs more valuable
to the Crown than female heirs, inasmuch as personal service was more
effective and reliable than representative service; and, therefore, in
early Norman days, when all lands lay in the King’s gift, he was eager
to confirm each succeeding son of the last owner in his possessions,
before _any_ of the daughters. But the principles of justice, the
customs of the land, and the springs of human nature, combined in
opposition to a further exercise of the Royal will, so that _all_ the
daughters succeeded before any of the collateral heirs, before uncle,
cousin, or nephew. Husbands and fathers would not have risked their
lives freely in the King’s wars, if they knew that wives and daughters
were to lose their estates, at the same time as they lost the protection
of their strong right arms. A survival of Saxon opinion strangely
affected further the position of daughters, when the chaos of custom
took form in law. An eldest-born son could inherit to the detriment of
his younger brothers, following the Norman custom of primogeniture, but
the eldest-born daughter held no privilege over her younger sisters, who
were all _co-parceners_ with her as regarded the inheritance, in the
manner that children of both sexes inherited among the Saxons, and among
the representatives of the Saxons, the free men of Kent. An indivisible
inheritance, such as a title, fell in abeyance among daughters until
decided by the selection of the Crown, though it was generally granted
to the eldest daughter.[i.] Unless a woman, therefore, was an only
child, she did not succeed to the entire advantages of “the heir,” but
as only child, and sole heiress, she inherited to the full the rights
and privileges of her father, brother, or ancestor. Sex-in-itself did
not _disqualify_ a woman from anything. There was no excusing a woman a
duty, and _consequently_ no denying her a privilege. “_Essoin de
servitio regis_ lyeth not where the party is a woman” (Statutes 33, Ed.
I.). The only advantage granted her, that of “sending a deputy,” she was
allowed in common with men, frail or infirm, or over the age of bearing
arms.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account