Analysis Of Coverture In 'The Woman In White'

2065 Words5 Pages

The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins was published in 1859-60, two years after The Matrimonial Causes Act, a change in British law “that was first big step in the breakdown of coverture,” according to Danaya C. Wright in the essay Untying the Knot: An Analysis of the English Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Court Records. Under the law of coverture in England, a single woman had few legal rights, but the rights she did have vanished once she married. The property of a feme covert, including any future inheritance, and the ability to earn a wage, was directly under her husband’s control. Lillian Nayder, in “Wilkie Collins,” writes that Collins’s “concen with the inequities of Victorian marriage" stemmed from his own upbringing, being raised by
(Nayder 7, 11) It can also explain why he vacillates in “The Woman in White” between putting women in a situation that seems to leave them no choice but to accept their male perpetrated institutionalizations and showing how their own complicit deference to Victorian tact and those same men perpetuate that prison. Collins wants it both ways.
In The Woman in White, Laura Fairlie, despite warnings from everyone around her and a victim of her soon-to-be-husband, does not take the opportunity offered by Percival Glyde to end an unwanted engagement made, in essence, by her father. She blames her inability to change her mind on her “obligation”, not just to Percival, but “to her father’s memory.” (170) Collins tell us though, that that desire to fulfill promises is her antagonist, “Her own noble conduct has been her hidden enemy.” (Marian
In 1860, J. Ewing Ritchie wrote in About London “Such cases are constantly occurring.” (141) Although it was typically women who used the law to get financial release from men, it was not unheard of for men to sue their betrothed. But, according to Ginger S Frost in Promises Broken: Courtship, Class, and Gender in Victorian England, “A person under twenty-one could sue but not be sued for a promise made before his or her majority.” (16). Laura was twenty. There was no legal recourse Percival could take if she said

Open Document