Did Ancient Time European Women Have Equal Inheritance Right With Men?

Question

I guess they had!!. Otherwise how did *bloody Mary* and Elizebeth I inherit reign? And I remember a very wealthy French inheritress was pursued by many european aristocrats becuz she owned half of france......

And in Sherlock Holmes, there're many stories about inheritress, like speckled band, solitary cyclist......

But why in Austin's novels like Sense and Sensibility the girls all wanted to marry a wealthy man becuz they themselves had no right to inherit their own family's property?

Any expert out there?? Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

This is not a simple question: "ancient time" is not a very precise marker. The answer varies with countries, periods and customs.



However, there are some general pointers. In general inheritance law and custom tended to prioritise the male line. Females, in most cultures, inherited when specifically willed something. This could include a throne - the Empress Maud/Matilda was willed the throne of England by her father Henry I, but the inheritance was disputed by Stephen and a civil war followed.



In some parts of Europe colonised from the 4thC by the Salian Franks their laws, which debarred females from inheriting a throne in any circumstances, were valid right down to historic times. There were no regnant queens of France, for instance.



The reason is obviously military. When the normal condition of a state or faction is war, the ruler must be a war leader and women do not normally fight (though Matilda, Joan of Arc and Isabel of Spain did not do badly as generals).



In the early 19thC in this country (the Jane Austen period you refer to) males were prioritised through the law of entail. Females could and did inherit unentailed property and be left money. If they married, their husbands controlled (but not legally owned) the money. There were trusts and other legal dodges to protect a woman from a possible predatory husband by tying up the capital and transmitting it intact to the children.



Hope this clears it up a bit.

Answer 2

It depended on whether or not the property was entailed.

Entail - bequeath (property) so that it remains within a family. Bestowed inalienably - so that it cannot be bestowed upon another.

This was a legal procedure, whereby aristocratic families ensured that the estate would go to the eldest son, and thus kept in the family. Daughters could inherit unentailed wealth, but because it was assumed that they would marry and thus "belong" to her husband's family, the entail was a way of ensuring that the property of the estate - house, lands, title - remained in the family. This was why Henry VIII was so desperate to have a son - because he believed that that was the only way that "his" property i.e. the throne of England, could be kept safe. A woman would belong to her husband - and this belief could be part of the reason why Elizabeth I never married, so that she would be free to rule as she wished, and would not be expected to bow to the demands of her husband, whoever he may be.



This was why the birth of a son was so important. In families such as portrayed by Jane Austen, the property often went to the son, or to the next legitimate male relative. This was why, in say Sense and Sensibility, the Dashwood sisters had to leave their home as their half-brother had inherited the estate, and all that they and their mother inherited was the unentailed portion of the estate.



Due to the ways in which the aristocratic and wealthy families collected property and wealth, things could become very complicated after a death, as the division of entailed and unentailed property became very complicated. For example, in some cases, a man could inherit a title and a large estate - but no money with which to run it - so he would then need to search for a wealthy heiress, who had received the unentailed wealth from her father, so that he could afford to maintain his property.



I believe that, if an entailed property was left without a legitimate heir, the property had to revert to the Crown, to be held in trust for when a woman had a son - but I'm not 100% sure on that aspect. I do know that, regardless, a woman could not inherit an entailed property in her own right, and that it was a very complicated legal procedure to break an entail.

Answer 3

Ah, generalizations - - - they seem so simple - - - what they are is simply cr^p........ There was no one set hard & fast rule for all of Europe all of the time before, well since you cite Jane Austen then say the 1820 s... In a majority of cases women were barred from inheriting land & wealth but as with all legal matters there were ways around the issue. Many a time a woman was 'guardian' of her son's inheritance and so if hubby died when son was one the wife would wield power for at the least fifteen maybe seventeen years. A clever mother might wrangle a lifetime of power; guiding her son into marriage at age fifteen long enough to get bride pregnant, assured of a grandson, sending son off to war, and if the son died, mom cried a few tears and settled into watching over her grandson, guarding his inheritance.



Women had to be creative in order to secure their rights and then as now the rights of the wealthy were easier to sustain than the rights of the poor. Noble women were always guaranteed a cozy spot in the life raft and a majority of European countries preferred a Noble Woman on the throne rather than a child from a 'lesser' family. Actually the issue of Queens was way more complicated than the examples set by Mary and Elizabeth.....

In fact FEAR of Mary, set in motion the most bizzare of choices..... Lady Jane Grey, a distant cousin of the late King Edward was foisted on the throne since the 'legit' male choices were Catholic..... Enough Catholics were around to drown out any clamor for Lady Jane, and so Mary was made Queen and Jane was beheaded... LATER when Mary died, the fact that Protestant Jane had been (briefly) Queen, eased the way for Elizabeth to mount the throne, again the only males deemed eligible were Catholic..

But in France - - - the French said NO - - - after having had a few bad experiences with Dominating Bee-Atches, it was made the Law of the Land that no woman would ever be an actual Queen, ruling over France....



Women had it best in the Netherlands which early on was an industrialized country. The Dutch with their need for Dykes (to hold back the sea, etc) approached life with praticality and figured out that since men die earlier then women, usually, that it only made sence to let women inherit wealth & property. In fact when the Durch colonized New York, Colonial women were better off then when the city was taken by the English......



Enough of my blathering, you get the point, it varied over time and place - - - in some places things were better five to seven hundred years back, then regimes changed and things turned rotten. In America oddly enough the Revolution though fueled by women was bad for their rights, in the wake of the war ignorant forces forced through laws disenfranchising women..



Peace.......................... /// ------ O . v . O ------- \\\.................m

Answer 4

equivalent treatment is the splendid attitude yet equality of effect may be a level of the success of a coverage of equivalent treatment. there's a difficulty with defining and imposing equivalent treatment between women and adult males human beings. If one in each and every of each and every gender follow for a job and that they are the comparable age [say 35 years] with the comparable skills, then the guy's CV [Resume] could be envisioned to be be more desirable via assessment to the lady's. Why? because of the fact she is possibly to have spent years giving delivery and citing her little ones. of direction, adult males ought to improve their little ones yet social and economic pressures toughen the stereotypical reports of girls and adult males human beings. So how we could be certain equality of treatment that recognises the extra effective adventure of the guy besides because of the fact the occupational drawbacks of being a woman in many spheres of employment? do no longer know, yet equality of treatment ought to be the purpose. Edit: What approximately this? could or ought to an company think touching directly to the years a woman spends elevating her relatives, and settle for it as factors to be further to her CV? So the guy could have the abilities and 12 years paintings adventure, however the lady might have in simple terms 4 or 5 years. besides, her 7 or 8 years of relatives administration, relatives budgeting, being concerned and installation ought to/could be be taken under consideration. Then they could be seen the two and the determination for appointment could be in accordance with interviews and different assessments. a minimum of she might get via to that degree. the great question is that this: might it relatively is legal or ethical to equate the guy and the lady in this foundation? i think of definite.

Answer 5

The eldest son always inherited every thing , if there was not one they went down to the next male in line and he inherited all . not so in Europe were the female line was as important as the male

Answer 6

no