Any kind soul who can point to the appropriate legislation declaring that
wives can no longer be considered chattels in the UK, or when it was
enacted?

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Jan 19, 4:05 pm, The Wanderer wrote:

Any kind soul who can point to the appropriate legislation declaring that
wives can no longer be considered chattels in the UK, or when it was
enacted?

What makes you think that they ever *were* considered to be chattels?

Under English common law, a wife was considered to be either the same
legal person as her husband, or subordinate to his authority. One
might consider that to be the same in practice as treating a wife as
her husband's property, but the law recognised a clear distinction.

Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [Book I, Ch. 15]
will give you some idea of the limitations placed upon married women
being able to act as independent persons; at least in terms of how the
law stood in the late eighteenth century.


--
AGw.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:30:08 +0000, AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

On Jan 19, 4:05 pm, The Wanderer wrote:

Any kind soul who can point to the appropriate legislation declaring that
wives can no longer be considered chattels in the UK, or when it was
enacted?

What makes you think that they ever *were* considered to be chattels?

My dearly beloved, who happened to make a flippant comment about wives no
longer being considered as chattels......

That merely aroused my curiosity to try and investigate further, but IANAL
so I thought I'd ask here.

Trying to find references through Google or Wiki[1] as a starting point was
also a fruitless exercise.

Under English common law, a wife was considered to be either the same
legal person as her husband, or subordinate to his authority. One
might consider that to be the same in practice as treating a wife as
her husband's property, but the law recognised a clear distinction.

Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [Book I, Ch. 15]
will give you some idea of the limitations placed upon married women
being able to act as independent persons; at least in terms of how the
law stood in the late eighteenth century.

Thank you, so it would seem they have never been considered as chattels.

[1] I realise that Wiki is only as good as the people who contribute.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Jan 20, 10:55 am, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:30:08 +0000, AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

My dearly beloved, who happened to make a flippant comment about wives no
longer being considered as chattels......

That merely aroused my curiosity to try and investigate further, but IANAL
so I thought I'd ask here.

Under English common law, a wife was considered to be either the same
legal person as her husband, or subordinate to his authority. One
might consider that to be the same in practice as treating a wife as
her husband's property, but the law recognised a clear distinction.

Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [Book I, Ch. 15]
will give you some idea of the limitations placed upon married women
being able to act as independent persons; at least in terms of how the
law stood in the late eighteenth century.

Thank you, so it would seem they have never been considered as chattels.

Not so far as I'm aware, no.

A chattel is a form of property, and can be bought or inherited, sold
or bequeathed, exchanged for another, or even destroyed; none of these
things could be lawfully done to a married woman. However, it is true
that there are a few reported cases of wives being put up for auction
by their husbands; I believe the most recent examples date from around
the 1830s, although of course some eccentric might've tried it since
then. Still, in an age in which divorce was essentially impossible,
it's easy to see that even the wife might've thought that being "sold"
to a new husband would've improved her position in life!

On the other hand, the extent to which it's been either socially or
legally acceptable for a man to use violence against his wife, whether
for "correction" or otherwise, has varied by both time and place until
relatively recently, so in a sense that's a matter of a man being seen
to have a right to do what he wished "with his own property".

Also, until a date that escapes me for the moment, it was considered
particularly heinous for a woman to kill her husband, and indeed there
was even a separate offence for it: petty treason. The same offence
also applied to a servant killing his or her master, if that helps put
it into a sort of social context; the idea was to preserve the social
order by forcing people to "know their place", and of course existed
in parallel with "high treason" as a means to preserve the
relationship between subject and King.

Anyway, I'd definitely recommend you have a read through that chapter
of Blackstone's. Although a lawyer from an age in which verbose legal
claptrap was the norm, he's very easy to read (the odd Latin maxim
aside), doesn't take too long to make his point, and also neatly
encapsulates some of the attitudes of his time; just avoid any edition
from after his death that's had a later editor let loose on it.
You'll be surprised how dehumanised a married woman's legal status
could be, as seen through modern eyes.

Of course a person's legal status doesn't by itself convey what that
person's life is like; throughout history there have been slaves who
have been treated well, and "free" people who've been horifically
abused, after all...


--
AGw.

"AGw. (Usenet)" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 10:55 am, The Wanderer wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:30:08 +0000, AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

My dearly beloved, who happened to make a flippant comment about wives no
longer being considered as chattels......

That merely aroused my curiosity to try and investigate further, but
IANAL
so I thought I'd ask here.

Under English common law, a wife was considered to be either the same
legal person as her husband, or subordinate to his authority. One
might consider that to be the same in practice as treating a wife as
her husband's property, but the law recognised a clear distinction.

Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [Book I, Ch. 15]
will give you some idea of the limitations placed upon married women
being able to act as independent persons; at least in terms of how the
law stood in the late eighteenth century.

Thank you, so it would seem they have never been considered as chattels.

Not so far as I'm aware, no.

A chattel is a form of property, and can be bought or inherited, sold
or bequeathed, exchanged for another, or even destroyed; none of these
things could be lawfully done to a married woman. However, it is true
that there are a few reported cases of wives being put up for auction
by their husbands; I believe the most recent examples date from around
the 1830s, although of course some eccentric might've tried it since
then. Still, in an age in which divorce was essentially impossible,
it's easy to see that even the wife might've thought that being "sold"
to a new husband would've improved her position in life!

On the other hand, the extent to which it's been either socially or
legally acceptable for a man to use violence against his wife, whether
for "correction" or otherwise, has varied by both time and place until
relatively recently, so in a sense that's a matter of a man being seen
to have a right to do what he wished "with his own property".


This custom is the origin of the phrase 'rule of thumb' which referred to
the custom (never I think a rule of law) that a man could beat his wife with
a stick no thicker than his thumb.

and there was the old saying

Three things, a wife, a dog and a walnut tree
The more you beat them, the better they be.

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:30:08 +0000, AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

On Jan 19, 4:05 pm, The Wanderer wrote:

Any kind soul who can point to the appropriate legislation declaring
that
wives can no longer be considered chattels in the UK, or when it was
enacted?

What makes you think that they ever *were* considered to be chattels?

My dearly beloved, who happened to make a flippant comment about wives no
longer being considered as chattels......

That merely aroused my curiosity to try and investigate further, but IANAL
so I thought I'd ask here.

Trying to find references through Google or Wiki[1] as a starting point
was
also a fruitless exercise.

Under English common law, a wife was considered to be either the same
legal person as her husband, or subordinate to his authority. One
might consider that to be the same in practice as treating a wife as
her husband's property, but the law recognised a clear distinction.

Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [Book I, Ch. 15]
will give you some idea of the limitations placed upon married women
being able to act as independent persons; at least in terms of how the
law stood in the late eighteenth century.

Thank you, so it would seem they have never been considered as chattels.

[1] I realise that Wiki is only as good as the people who contribute.

As you will no doubt have discovered, a google search using the terms
wife "husband's chattel"
produces numerous hits. There are suggestions that before the early 19th
century the principle was good in England and that in jewish law it may have
persisted for later. I am not at all sure where you would find a reliable
history book to give that information. There were probably lots of feminist
history books and sociology books being produced in the early 70's so that
might be the place to look. Unfortunately it forms no part of any standard
textbook for trainee lawyers.

I wouldn't feel confident to say there is no truth in the belief that women
were once considered chattels.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:10:12 +0000, The Todal wrote:

"The Wanderer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:30:08 +0000, AGw. (Usenet) wrote:

On Jan 19, 4:05 pm, The Wanderer wrote:

Any kind soul who can point to the appropriate legislation declaring
that
wives can no longer be considered chattels in the UK, or when it was
enacted?

What makes you think that they ever *were* considered to be chattels?

My dearly beloved, who happened to make a flippant comment about wives no
longer being considered as chattels......

That merely aroused my curiosity to try and investigate further, but IANAL
so I thought I'd ask here.

Trying to find references through Google or Wiki[1] as a starting point
was
also a fruitless exercise.

Under English common law, a wife was considered to be either the same
legal person as her husband, or subordinate to his authority. One
might consider that to be the same in practice as treating a wife as
her husband's property, but the law recognised a clear distinction.

Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" [Book I, Ch. 15]
will give you some idea of the limitations placed upon married women
being able to act as independent persons; at least in terms of how the
law stood in the late eighteenth century.

Thank you, so it would seem they have never been considered as chattels.

[1] I realise that Wiki is only as good as the people who contribute.

As you will no doubt have discovered, a google search using the terms
wife "husband's chattel"
produces numerous hits. There are suggestions that before the early 19th
century the principle was good in England and that in jewish law it may have
persisted for later. I am not at all sure where you would find a reliable
history book to give that information. There were probably lots of feminist
history books and sociology books being produced in the early 70's so that
might be the place to look. Unfortunately it forms no part of any standard
textbook for trainee lawyers.

As I said earlier in the thread, it was really idle curiosity on my part to
try and ascertain if there was some point enshrined in statute law when
wives were no longer considered to be chattels - if indeed they ever were
thus considered in the eyes of the law. It seems very much that is not the
case.

I wouldn't feel confident to say there is no truth in the belief that women
were once considered chattels.

It seems that perhaps it had more to do with attitudes than with statutes.

Anyway, thank you to those who responded.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net