The inequality of historical marriage

How historical marriages in Britain stripped women of their money, their rights and even their children

Today, people choose to get married for a multitude of reasons, including love, companionship, building a family, and legal and financial benefits. Marriage can also be a way to fulfil social norms, religious beliefs, and a desire for stability and security. It should and often does, operate as a partnership of equals with mutual respect, and co-operation and consultation on decision making.

However in from the Middle Ages, the primary motivations for marriage were often pragmatic, and romantic love was not always the primary driving force behind marriage, until very much later.

For much of British history, marriage was a system that facilitated the transfer of wealth and authority from women to men, disenfranchised their legal rights and economic independence, and served as a mechanism of patriarchal control. This article discusses the inequality of historical marriage.

Do you intend to take a wife? 

Marriage was primarily a contract between families, often arranged for economic or political benefit to each party.

Family Alliances: Marriages were often arranged by parents to strengthen ties between families, create new social connections, and potentially resolve disputes or conflicts. 

The dowry:  The transfer of a portion of the bride’s inheritance from the bride’s family to the groom’s family, to offset the cost of her living expenses, was a significant economic incentive for a man's choice of bride. This dowry could include land, livestock, money, or other valuable possessions. 

Securing Land and Property: Marriage could also be a way to acquire land or property through a dowry or a bride's subsequent inheritance, which passed to her husband.

Lineage:

Land and property generally passed down through the male line ensuring the continuation of the family line and the preservation of their wealth and social standing. Brides were expected to produce children and particularly male heirs.

Coverture

Coverture, which operated from the Middle Ages through the 19th century, was where a where a married woman's legal identity was subsumed under that of her husband.  

“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage” (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769).

Women were invisible in the eyes of the law and a wife’s personhood existed only through her spouse. While unmarried women retained their legal identity, marriage transformed women into dependents without agency or recourse.

The lack of economic worth of women

Wealth flowed into marriage from women, not to them. This legal framework embedded deep economic dependency, forcing women to rely on male guardianship for survival and rendering them vulnerable in cases of desertion, abuse, or widowhood.

Agency:  A wife could not own property, enter into contracts, and her wages and inheritance were legally her husband's. She could not conduct her own affairs.

Land and property: Land and property owned by a woman (or latterly inherited) transferred to the husband's control. Even when families attempted to protect a daughter's assets through trusts or marriage settlements, these mechanisms were rare, limited to the upper classes, and often intended to preserve family wealth from disreputable sons-in-law—not to grant autonomy to women.

Earnings: Any earnings a woman might generate—through work, inheritance, or intellectual labor—became her husband’s by right.

Children: The husband’s power over his wife’s property extended to her body and offspring. He had sole legal guardianship over their children and could deny her access in cases of separation.

Divorce: A man could divorce on grounds of adultery alone, while a woman had to prove adultery plus cruelty, incest, or desertion. Women were also denied access to her children and her earnings after separating.

Societal and structural inequality remains today

Social and cultural expectations relegated women to subordinate roles within marriage. Women's access to higher education, professions, and financial independence was constrained by social norms that viewed marriage and motherhood as their primary roles.

Legal reforms such as full voting rights from women (1928), the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, outpaced societal change and did not erase the historical patterns of unpaid labour, particularly in caregiving and domestic roles, and economic marginalisation within the home. Women continue to face widespread discrimination in employment and public life.

The legal recognition of women’s right to own property did not eliminate the broader structural inequalities that marriage often reinforced—inequalities in access to wealth, housing, pensions, and economic security. Studies show that women, particularly after divorce, are more likely to experience poverty and housing insecurity. The division of assets, while guided by principles of fairness, often reflects long-standing economic imbalances rooted in caregiving roles and income disparities.

Moreover, the institution of marriage still carries with it the historical residue of ownership and control. Even with progressive reform, the legal and cultural foundations of marriage were built on the assumption of female dependency—and those assumptions continue to shape societal attitudes about gender, work, and domestic life.

A wife is still for the taking!

May 2025