Other Women

by Fiona McDonald

  Things gradually improved for women. In 1839 the Infant Custody Act was brought in. This gave the courts the discretion of awarding custody of children under age 7 to their mother, unless the woman had been found guilty of adultery.

  The Divorce Act was passed in 1857 and this meant that both men and women could apply for divorce, so that they could remarry. Men could ask for a divorce on the grounds of adultery but women had to prove that there had been cruelty, desertion, sodomy, bigamy or bestiality in the marriage. It was still an unfair system: men were more easily to succeed in their claims whereas women would inevitably be humiliated and blamed for the marriage breakdown – and the poor still did not have real access to divorce because it was too expensive, averaging £100 (about £4,300 in today’s money).

  The Matrimonial Causes Act was introduced in 1878. Yet it was nothing more than a theoretical attempt to make things more equal for women, which in practice generally did not happen. This act allowed a woman to ask for a legal separation from her husband on grounds of cruelty, such as being beaten. In practice, however, the plea was usually not granted. Several years later, in 1884, the punishment of imprisonment for a wife who refused to return to her marital home and resume ‘conjugal rights’ with her husband was abolished.

  It was not until 1923 that men and women in England had equal rights in divorce cases, but it was more than another forty years before divorce could be granted for reasons of incompatibility.

  Marriage was, until towards the last quarter of the twentieth century, a binding contract that was extremely difficult to break, particularly for women.

  INHERITANCE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

  It wasn’t until 1870, with the Married Women’s Property Act, that women in England had a right to keep for themselves money they had earned during their marriage. Twelve years later, the act was amended to include all property. This meant that finally women had some means to look after themselves if a marriage failed.

  Until the late nineteenth century any land or money that a woman brought with her into marriage automatically became the husband’s property; married women, through the act of marriage, lost all legal status. It was stated that when a man and woman married they became a single unit. If this were truly thought to be the case then one could ask why the man was put solely in charge of income and property, as surely it should be handled jointly. One way around this was for the parents of the daughter to have legal documents drawn up explicitly stating that any money and inheritance that went with the daughter into marriage was to remain hers alone. This was an attempt to protect large estates from being squandered by a husband, and to give the woman an income if things didn’t turn out.

  When a man died his widow was granted independence. She could inherit her husband’s estate and fortune, or his business or farm. Usually the estate went to the eldest legitimate son, but a substantial portion of his inheritance was settled on the widow as a pension.

  Men, on the other hand, didn’t have to wait for their wives to die in order to get their hands on any land or money that she brought with her into the marriage, they could have their wives put into asylums, claiming that they were mad – though in reality all it took was brute force. Women locked up in this way had little chance to defend themselves. It was extremely difficult to prove that the husband was in the wrong and it took a lot of effort by friends and family of the woman to get the King’s Bench to issue a writ of habeas corpus so that the incarcerated wife could be granted her freedom.

  However, as we know through the trials of Mr Rochester in Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, a man of integrity was not at liberty to divorce his wife because she was truly insane. Marriage, unless under exceptional circumstances, was till death do they part, for better or worse, in sickness and in health.

  Part 2

  Mistresses of Royalty

  For the kings of Europe from the Middle Ages right up until the late nineteenth century, it was a common custom to take at least one mistress, if not more, as a social, intellectual, romantic and sexual alternative to the legally wedded wife. Sometimes the arrangement suited both the king and his spouse: if the marriage had been made for political, economic or social reasons then the less sex she needed to have with him the better. Mostly the situation arose without any concern for the feelings of the wife, who was used as a breeding machine to bring forth the essential royal heir. This is not to say that there were no royal marriages in which the spouses didn’t come to love each other. Charles I and his wife were such a pair; lovers as well as a diplomatic union.

  For a woman chosen to be the mistress of a monarch or man in a high position it was an opportunity to influence decisions of state, to have a say in a normally male-dominated world. She could enjoy certain social freedoms, have stimulating intellectual conversations with men of letters and the arts, and could access all sorts of secrets of state.

  Who were these women and what backgrounds did they come from?

  There were those who were born with the right credentials, for instance the Boleyn sisters whose father was Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire, Earl of Ormond and Viscount Rochford. Their mother was the daughter of the 2nd Duke of Norfolk. Mary was one of Henry’s mistresses, a position later filled by her sister Anne. Anne’s parentage was of sufficiently high social standing as to not be an impediment to the king eventually marrying her (there were, however, plenty of other reasons that were put forth).

  One of Charles II’s long-term mistresses was the actress Nell Gwyn. Her origins were not only obscure but were very low down the social scale and not of any social consequence. Therefore, even without the problem of there already being a queen at Charles’s side, she would never have been considered marriageable, no matter how deeply the king loved her.

  Nell’s status was so unimportant that when the king tired of her he had her installed at a house belonging to the Crown but to which she was only a lessee. Nell indignantly asserted herself and demanded the title of the property be made over to her. The sole survivor of Nell’s two sons by the king, and named Charles in his honour, was given the title Earl of Burford, later to become the Duke of St Albans.

  There are too many stories to tell in this book about all the mistresses to all the kings of England. Added to this, there are even more intriguing stories about mistresses to monarchs across the sea. This short list identifies some that might offer enticing stories for further study:

  ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND:

  Rosamund Clifford (before 1150–c.1176), also known as ‘Fair Rosamund’ or ‘the Rose of the World’, was mistress to Henry II.

  Agnes Dunbar was mistress to David of Scotland from 1369–71.

  Alice Perrers(c.1340–1400), mistress to King Edward III.

  Elizabeth ‘Jane’ Shore (c.1445–c.1527), one of many mistresses to Edward IV and later to several other men.

  Elizabeth Blount (c.1502–39/40), one of Henry VIII’s long-term lovers and one he did not attempt to marry.

  Mary Boleyn (c.1500–43), the first of the Boleyn sisters to become mistress to Henry VIII.

  Anne Boleyn (c.1501/07–36), the second sister to become Henry VIII’s mistress and later his wife.

  Elizabeth Hamilton, Countess of Orkney (1657–1733), mistress to William III and II of England and Scotland from 1680–95.

  Elizabeth Villiers, mistress to William III.

  Arabella Churchill, mistress to James II.

  Catherine Sedley, mistress to James II.

  Ehrengard Melusine von der Schulenburg (1667–1743), mistress to George I.

  Henrietta Howard, Countess of Suffolk, mistress to George II.

  Mary Scott, Countess of Deloraine (1703–44), mistress to George II.

  Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth, mistress to George II from the mid-1730s to 1760.

  Elizabeth Conyngham, Marchioness Conyngham, mistress to George IV.

  Dorothy Jordan, mistress to William IV while he was the Duke of Clarence. They were together for twenty years and had ten children
.

  Lillie Langtry, mistress to Edward VII.

  Daisy Greville, Countess of Warwick, mistress to Edward VII.

  Lady Jennie Churchill (1854–1921), mistress to Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, later Edward VII.

  Lady Frances ‘Daisy’ Brooke, later Countess of Warwick (1861–1938), mistress to Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, later Edward VII.

  Alice Keppel (1869–1947), mistress to Edward VII.

  Wallis Warfield Simpson, later Duchess of Windsor (1895–1986), mistress then wife to Edward David, Prince of Wales, King Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor.

  EUROPE:

  Agnes Sorel (1421–50), mistress to King Charles VII of France.

  Louise de la Valiere, mistress to King Louis XIV of France from 1661–67.

  Anna Mons, mistress of Tsar Peter the Great from 1691–1703.

  Madame Du Barry, mistress of Louis XV of France.

  Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV of France.

  Eliza Rosanna Gilbert, later Countess of Landsfeld, Irish dancer with the stage name ‘Lola Montez’, mistress of King Ludwig I of Bavaria.

  Maria Antonovna Naryshkina (1779–1854), a Polish noble who was mistress to Tsar Alexander I of Russia for thirteen years.

  Magda Lupescu, mistress to King Carol II of the Romanians.

  Marie, Countess Walewski, a Polish noble who was mistress to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.

  Caroline Lacroix, mistress to Leopold II of Belgium.

  Baroness Mary Vetsera, mistress to the Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria (1871–89). Vetsera never had the opportunity to become the wife of Rudolf because they were found dead together in his hunting lodge. It was thought that it was a suicide pact. However, there are other theories …

  EDITH THE FAIR

  One of the earliest mistresses to be noted in English history may not really qualify for that title. Her name is Edith the Fair (c.1025–c.1086) and there are various versions of the spelling of this ancient name. She has also been called Edith Swan Neck and Edith the Gentle Swan. To say she was Harold Godwinson’s mistress is probably to misunderstand the law and customs of the time in which they lived. As descendants of Danes they tended to hold on to traditions that had been brought from that country. One of these was handfasting, a commonly practised form of marriage. It was considered a legal form of marriage and the children from such a union were not seen as illegitimate. However, it was not seen as a proper marriage in the eyes of the Church.

  Edith was born around AD 1025 and had been married to Harold II for a good twenty years before he died. They had five children that are known of: three boys – Godwin, Edmund and Magnus, and two girls – Gunhild and Gytha. Gunhild went into the convent at Wilton; Gytha married Vladimir Monomakh, Grand Duke of Kiev. She was always considered to be of royal stock.

  Edith possessed land in her own right and is thought to be one of the earliest owners of Sheredes and Hodders Danbury Manor. It was here that Harold was supposed to have spent a last night with his wife before he went to battle with William the Conqueror.

  Some time before Harold’s last stand, he was fighting the Welsh under their leader Gruffydd ap Llewelyn. Harold was victorious and as part of a plan to unite Wales and Mercia, tying them to England, he took Llewelyn’s widow, Ealdgyth, to be his queen consort by marrying her in church and in the sight of God. Why he had never married Edith in a church ceremony is not known; perhaps the two felt it was not necessary as they were bound together by their handfasting ceremony. Certainly Harold’s second marriage was not made through love, although several accounts tell of Ealdgyth’s incredible beauty. Rather, the marriage was a political device that meant it would be easier for Harold to control his former enemies. Ealdgyth was nothing more than a token to seal a bargain – and her thoughts and wishes did not come into it.

  When Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings his body was badly mutilated. The clerics sent to recover it could not identify it so, as the legend goes, Edith the Fair, Harold’s long-time partner and the mother of his children, strode through the blood and gore and identified him by marks on his chest that were known only to her (romantic speculation claims they were the scars of love bites). Harold’s queen, Ealdgyth, was collected by two of her brothers, who presumably took her back to the heart of her home and people.

  THE MISTRESSES OF

  KING CHARLES II

  The seventeenth century was notable for the commonality of keeping a mistress, whether it was due to a craze or because Charles II made it fashionable. In fact, it was almost a social requirement that a gentleman have a long-standing liaison with a woman who was not his wife. Apparently Francis North, Lord Guilford was a gentleman who was considered to have neglected his duty by not keeping a mistress.

  Charles II

  CHARLES, THE MAN

  If a monarch is born under the star of Venus is it any wonder that he often falls in love with beautiful women? King Charles II was born on 29 May 1630 under such a constellation and he certainly made it his business to love women.

  Charles II had no children with his wife, Catherine of Braganza. She suffered several miscarriages and stillbirths. In spite of the fact that Charles had sired a number of illegitimate children with various mistresses, England’s throne was to be handed to Charles’s brother James upon the king’s death.

  THE MISTRESSES

  Lucy Walter

  Lucy Walter (c.1630–1658) is considered to be the first in a long line of Charles II’s mistresses. She is the first to have had a child that Charles admitted as his own. Unfortunately, Lucy came into Charles’s life when it was in turmoil. His royal father had been beheaded and he was in exile himself, and lacking regular funds. His attempt to win back the kingdom cost all of the money that his loyal supporters could scrape together; there was nothing left over with which to indulge a young woman with no dowry. Consequently Lucy’s life as the would-be king’s mistress was not a secure one and, when Charles went away on campaigns, Lucy was left without a provider. This meant that she was tempted to take other lovers, which did nothing to ensure trust and loyalty from Charles (he was not crowned king until 1661, long after his relationship with Lucy had fallen by the wayside).

  Lucy Walter was born in the same year as Charles II. Her parents were Richard (or William) Walter of Roch Castle in Wales and his wife, Elizabeth Protheroe. They were a noble family who were staunch Royalists during the Civil War, for which their property was seized and razed to the ground by the Parliamentarians. It is thought that Lucy was born in Wales, but moved to London in her childhood after the destruction of her family home. It is also a possibility that her parents had separated and that Lucy and her mother were living as best they could amongst other Royalists, in a state of upheaval.

  Lucy Walter

  Exactly what she did in her teenage years and with whom is largely conjecture. Samuel Pepys and Lord Clarendon have written that she had already indulged in a number of sexual affairs before she left England for Holland, by way of Paris, at age 18. One of her lovers was supposedly Algernon Sidney, second son of the Earl of Leicester and a Parliamentary supporter. After a fling with Algernon, Lucy is said to have moved on to the younger brother, Robert. Other sources say that Lucy went with Robert to The Hague, travelling under the adopted name Barlow. Yet another version is that Lucy was taken to Paris by an uncle and from there she found her way into Holland, where she had her initial encounter with Charles in exile.

  Whichever story is true, the fact is that Lucy met Charles in The Hague in the year 1648 and had an affair with him. Charles left Holland not long after he and Lucy conceived a child. It was during this time that rumours arose about the possibility of the child’s father being Robert Sidney, as it is believed that Lucy had a liaison with Robert during Charles’s absence.

  When Charles returned to The Hague he settled back into his relationship with Lucy, who bore their son James in 1649. Charles seemingly had no doubt that the child was his and later bestowed u
pon him the title of 1st Duke of Monmouth. Lucy and Charles remained a couple until he left for Jersey (Lucy may have accompanied him for part of that time) and then to Scotland in 1650. Alone in Holland, Lucy turned to other men to provide for her. To one of them she bore a daughter, Mary. When Charles finally returned he did not acknowledge the child as his and made it clear to Lucy that their relationship was truly at an end. There are sources that claim there were several intimate meetings between them after this, one even as late as 1656.

  Lucy’s life gradually deteriorated from then on. Charles did not give in to her constant demands for money and he tried hard to get custody of his son, by means fair or foul. At one point Charles tried to take the boy by force. A kidnapping was successful in 1658 and James was taken from his mother to Paris. Lucy, desperate to get her son back, followed him to France, but before she could find him she was taken ill and died. As she lay dying she told John Cosin, who would later become Bishop of Durham, that she was the legal wife of Charles II. This is a claim that Lucy had made several times throughout her life but there had never been any evidence to support it. Indeed, if there had been any truth in it then Lucy would have been in danger of committing bigamy – as it is known that she seriously contemplated marriage with Sir Henry de Vic. Given that Charles was ready to approve the match, it is unlikely that he and Lucy had ever been officially married.

  The supporters of Charles’s brother James, in their bid to see him succeed to the English throne, did everything they could to discredit James of Monmouth in order to lessen his claim to it. They even blackened his mother’s name, claiming she was of low parentage and of no consequence. A memoir written by a member of the court of James II records that Lucy Walter died of syphilis, which may well have been a deliberate slur contrived to discredit her.