Women in Court: The Property Rights of Brides, Heiresses and Widows in Thirteenth- Century England Sheng-Yen Lu Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute of Historical Research, School of Advanced Study University of London September 2018 1 Declaration of Authorship I, Shengyen Lu, declare that the research presented in this thesis is entirely my own work carried out for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Institute of Historical Research and has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. Signed: Date: 2 Abstract The research targets women in court – those who were frequently recorded in legal documents managing or protecting their property rights. The main concern is the change and development of the legal status and property rights of women, namely hereditas (inheritance), maritagium (marriage portion) and dos (dower) from the end of the twelfth century to the thirteenth century in England, and how they strove for their rights in court. While the thirteenth century is significant in England for the crucial development of the common law, the evolving common law also enacted a few prominent pieces of legislation which had huge impacts for women’s property rights. A number of important questions should be addressed at this point - How did women strive for their rights and what difficulties did they encounter in court? What strategies and claims did they and their representatives use in court in order to cope with the new regulations? Also, in a rather primitive age, what was the gap between the law and practice? While recent scholarship has paid more attention to medieval English women’s property rights, very few works compare the differences between inheritance, maritagium and dower and the dynamics between them in thirteenth-century England, which is the focus of this research. Through case studies, I will examine women’s experiences of pursuing their property rights in court in order to elucidate the effects which the legislation brought, and what difficulties they might have encountered in court. The research uses case studies of women’s experiences not merely covering noblewomen but also wider groups of women in society, and by looking at court cases I aim to create a more comprehensive picture of medieval women’s property rights. More importantly, despite the focus in this research on women, it is impossible to discuss women without either putting them into the context of family or involving their menfolk; therefore, the research will not only discuss women’s participation in court but also the reactions of and dynamics among their family members when it came to property rights. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 consist of the introduction, and historiography methodology respectively. Chapter 3 will primarily examine heiresses. Unlike the male heir, who, according to custom, inherited the whole of the father’s inheritance (primogeniture), most daughters inherited by means of an equal division of the property. The equal division of inheritance between daughters makes the cooperation and conflict 3 between them worthy of discussion, and this will be one of the focuses of this chapter. Through examining the dynamics between co-heiresses and their family members, this chapter will also explore the difficulties heiresses encountered when claiming their inheritance. Chapter 4 discusses maritagium. This chapter will show that claiming a certain amount of land as maritagium was a strategy often used by both plaintiff and defendant. However, the strategy as such would be of more benefit to women in courts. Next, Claire de Trafford’s idea of ‘maritagium as women’s land’ will be challenged, since maritagia in most cases served as families’ property. This study suggests that, maritagium was easily disposed of during the marriage, rather than a woman being able to keep it intact for it to descend to her children; and the idea of ‘maritagium being women’s land’ could be misleading, because there was no social consciousness to suggest that maritagia should be passed on to women’s daughters as their maritagia. In Chapter 5 this study will reach the final stages of women’s lives – widowhood. Although the common law stipulated that widows were entitled to either a nominated dower, or one third of their late husbands’ property, claiming their dower in court, in fact, was a difficult task for widows to accomplish. These rights were reluctantly documented in law, thus offering no guarantee that they would be received, unconditionally, when they survived their husbands. This chapter will also show that dower was as much ‘family’s business’ as ‘women’s business’. The early development of jointure will be briefly examined as well because it not only concerned women’s dower. Finally, the rights of the most powerful group of women, widowed heiresses, will be looked at. Through case studies, I hope to offer a glimpse of how capable, influential, but vulnerable widowed heiresses could be. This study will conclude by comparing the property rights of heiresses, brides and widows. Dower might have been the only property that a woman could have sole control over, but the significance of inheritance and maritagium should not be underestimated. I shall clarify their position by exploring the differences and similarities between herediatas, maritagium and dos as the common law developed. 4 Acknowledgements This is where I am supposed to create a thesis-long list to express my gratitude and love to certain people; however, due to the limited space, I will simply appreciate those who were too important to be left out here. This thesis would not have been possible without Jane Winters, who supervised me, and has been incredibly supportive to my thesis from the very beginning to the end. Her kindness is a light in the dark, guiding me through all the challenges. Huge gratitude to Paul Brand, another supervisor, who gave me so much advice on the thesis, making me realize how interesting legal history is. To Jane and Paul, thank you for encouraging me when I was really depressed about this work last year, and being understanding all the time. They are, indeed, great supervisors. It is my true honour to work with them. Many thanks to Michael Clanchy, who, four years ago, referred me to Paul Brand, and also advised me a lot on the thesis. Also, I really appreciate all the help Tzung-Mou Wu, my supervisor in Taiwan’s Academia Sinica, gave me. As a jurist, he provided a fresh and different perspective from law for my thesis, from which I had great benefits. To May-shine Lin, thanks for triggering my interest in British history, and encouraging me all the way through this journey. Had it not been for her encouragement and help, I would not have reached this point. I owe everything to my parents, whose generosity and love allowed me to live in this expensive city for four years, and to pursue my dream. When I told my father that I wanted to proceed to a PhD after I graduated from the University of Edinburgh, he simply replied ‘we will support you as long as you are happy’. I am, truly, the luckiest girl. There was not a day that I didn’t miss them. To my IHR PhD fellows, Becca, Becki, Kathleen, and Charlie, the days we spent in that ‘only-to-be-used-by-us’ postgrad study room will stay as vividly as ever in my memory (that ‘self-indulgence at this time is helping the enemy’ poster is engraved on my mind). Also, enormous gratitude to Charlie, in particular, for dragging me out of my ‘little depression’ and tutoring me in palaeography. To all of my friends – Fan Chiang, Yusyuan, Alvin, Peggy, Vien, Claudia, Ievan, Drew, Jasmine, Ryan, Ling-Chieh, Ching-Wen – they are the comfort that I had in this hectic life in London. I am also hugely grateful to Michael Hunt, who proof-read my thesis, and made it much better than I can ever imagined. Liz, who also has been reading my work for four years, has always been there for me. The 22-year-old me made a right decision to befriend her, and this was probably the best decision I have ever made. A huge gratitude is due to my examiners, Prof. Louise Wilkinson and Prof. Alice Taylor, for giving me helpful advice during the viva. The last, but not the least, person to whom I owe my immense gratitude is Zhen-ping You, my boyfriend. Thank you for making this ‘17-hour-flight / 8-hour-between-us’ long-distant relationship possible, and turned his physical absence into something more than I could ask – whenever I need him, he is there. It is just like there is no distance between us at all. Without him, this journey would have never been the same. 5 Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..3 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………5 Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...6 Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………….9 Chapter 1 Introduction…………………….................................................................10 1.1 Research topic……………………………………………………………………10 1.2 The classification of people and the categories of tenures in thirteenth-century England……………………………………………………………………….…..13 1.3 Being a woman in medieval England……………………………………….……14 1.4 Thirteenth-Century English women……………………………………………...17 1.5 Dower…………………………………………………………………………….20 1.6 Maritagium………………………………………………………………………………..21 1.7 Jointure…………………………………………………………………………...23 1.8 Women’s business or family business?..................................................................24 Chapter 2 Historiography and Methodology…………………………………………25 2.1.1 Historiography of medieval English women…………………………………25 2.1.2 Historiography