3 Comments

  1. Christin Rauwolf Winckelmann

    From the perspective of a woman living in times when women had no rights to property, or anything else, for that matter. It is possible she thought that the money was rightly her, since it had been her husband’s and she had daughters to care for. She most likely used her son’s situation as a reason to deny him the money, thinking that he could probably do well on his own, compared to her. I look at her as a survivor. Not nice to do, but she had her reasons. Just my opinion.

  2. Banditqueen

    It’s very easy from the point of view of the 21st century to condemn a widow who denied the money her son was entitled to, but she can argue that he was not old enough or sensible enough and that she has other dependents to provide for. Women had few rights but they were entitled to certain protection from a husband in the case of his death or her family as a bride. While her husband controlled her money, she was entitled to receive her dowry back and dower lands and her jointure and if she was not well provided for, then it was natural to try to rectify that. Lady Wotton sounds quite fiesty and a thinking woman and I don’t blame her for trying to provide for her family, even if she wasn’t entirely legally entitled to this particular source of her son’s inheritance. Women had to work harder to survive, so I don’t blame her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 + 19 =