Carloine Norton 1808-1877

Caroline Norton, a nineteenth century English writer, was trapped in a disastrous marriage to a brutal man. Her husband , who in my view was a womanizer, denied her access to their three sons. He also tried to seize her earnings, which she had earned as a writer, because the wife and all that she had was the property of the husband. How could a man seek to deny a woman access to the child that she bares is totally ridiculous. If the mother was abusing the child that would be another story but this was not the position in Caroline Norton's case. As a man, I cannot image how frustrated and angry she was, which prompted her to write "A Letter to the Queen." In other words she was appealing to the highest authority of her time calling for the reformation of these marriage laws.

From the very beginning of the letter there are so many negative words, such as "no" and "cannot", that describes the woman relationship in a marriage. In England, and I am sure it was being practiced somewhere else during the Victorian era, it seems as if a woman had "No legal existence" (page 565). To me, this legal system that was set up to protect its citizens (male and female) was bias towards the men. In that men or husbands were treated superior as compared to women or wives. The speaker said, "the legal fiction holds her to be one with her husband, even though she may never see or hear of him" (page 565) suggesting that once a woman is married she becomes the wife of that man even if the man is not present in the home or is living some adulterous life. There was nothing that could be done by the woman because she was inferior.

The speaker, in her letter, continued with several cannot or may not by the "English wife". On page 565, the letter states "An English wife cannot make a will" suggesting that no matter what the wife possessed in her lifetime, she had no say as to who she would like to passed on those possessions to. "An English wife cannot legally claim her own earnings" (page 565). To me this statement is ridiculous. There are several women who have worked hard, rising early to get the children off to school, then going to work and cannot enjoy the reward of her hard labor. This, her hard earned salary is her "husband's." I am sure this would have never worked in today's society where the wife worked and the husband decides how the money is spent. Several women would rebel, as I am sure they did during Caroline's time, but the difference is that in our society there is recourse made available by law in which women could pursue.

The letter then continued on the same negative note about what the wife cannot do. "An English wife may not leave her husband house", and to me this is slavery. Even though some women might agree to this, I am sure many wives were retaliating and this would be classified as slavery since they were held against their will. I cannot comprehend in today's society a wife not allowed to leave the home and being treated as a slave. Just image the several murders that would be taking place due to the wife being held against her wish. Oh..this is the Victorian era where the wife is the property of the husband and if you have "a property" whether it is your wife or anything else, where ever you have placed her or it as in the case of anything else, that is where she/it must remain until being relocated. I might seem to be a little sarcastic but to me this is exactly how I feel that a wife is being treated in the Victorian era. I am not married, and when I do, I want my wife to feel as if she is not a property just as how I am not a property to her. It goes both ways, we are equal. The speaker then continued to explain how unfair the divorce proceedings were during her time, the laws was in favor of the husband. She states that, "If her husband take proceedings for a divorce, she is not, in the first instance allowed to defend herself. She has no means of proving the falsehood of his allegations," (page 565) suggesting that she has no say in the matter. The woman could never divorce the man even if she wanted to due to his adulterous life or abusive ways. This, in my mind is insane because several women were in abusive marriages and they couldnot do anything about it.

The author then went on to explain that, "Such, however, is the law: and if anything could add to the ridicule, confusion, and injustice of its provision, it would be the fact, that though it is the law for the rich, it is not for the poor" (page 566), suggesting that the laws at that time were biased towards the classes. The upper class was treated differently from that of the poorer class in that the poorer class cannot do legally, that which is done legally in the upper class even though it is the same law. The rich man was allowed to divorce his wife in order to fulfil his passions, which was allowed in England, but "the poor need not expect to obtain" (page 567) suggesting that this was not allowed for the poorer class. The author brought up this point to prove that just as how the same laws in England were interpreted differently for the classes, so it is with the laws of marriage. In that a woman has no legal existence in a marriage, she is the property of the man and the husband can do whatever he pleases since he is protected by the law.

Caroline Norton was not alive when the Married Women's Property Act of 1882 was passed but I am glad she wrote "A letter to the Queen." We have really come a long way, in that a woman, a wife or a mother has an equal right as a man, husband or a father in our society, although some might disagree with this statement. However, as the Bible states, "He that has found a good wife has found a good thing."