Elizabethan Era Domestic Discipline

[Narci]

I have been reading historical references that wife-spanking was not really a thing in the time of Elizabeth I. For example: performances of "The Taming of the Shrew" before the late 1800s would not have included a spanking of Catherine.

So, given that wives of the time were expected to obey their husbands, what socially-acceptable enforcement mechanism(s) would a husband have had in that time period?

In particular, among the nobility, what would an Earl or Viscount have done if his wife were disobedient or spoke out of turn in public? What kind of enforcement might he have used (back at the castle) that would not have caused him to lose face at court if it were made public?

Could he have her flogged (considering that male nobles were exempt from flogging)? Could he use a whip on her himself and have that be the expected thing to do?

I am writing an escape-fantasy story about a twenty-first century woman who is kidnapped to a theoretical Renaissance Fair where she has to actually submit to her husband or face Elizabethan-era consequences. It will probably have the trappings of BDSM with safe-words etc. but I want to have the wife face a historical approximation of the life of a late 16th century countess.

Speculation is appreciated, but actual links to historical research would be even better.

Thanks!

 

[oggbashan]

A noblewoman would probably been exempt from any punishment. She would have her own powerful relations who could react badly to any suggestion that she was abused.

Probably the worst that could be done is for the husband to absent himself from the marital bed, or even from that particular residence and acquire a mistress.

Physical punishment of noblewomen, while under the rule of a Queen, would be social suicide.

The scandal of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, whose first wife fell down the stairs and died is an example of the disgust which a wife-abuser would have faced. Even though a coroner's court decided it was an accident and Leicester wasn't there - it wrecked him socially.

I think you would have to set the story in the middle or lower classes.

PS: Most noble marriages at that time were dynastic. Neither the bride or groom had any choice in their selected partner. The woman would only have to 'obey' her husband in the matter of sex for producing children. About the only time they would be alone together is in bed. All the rest of the time there would be many servants around. Any discourtesy from one to the other would become common knowledge.

The husband would be likely to away from home a lot of the time, either at court or at war. While he was away the wife would run the whole family estates, possibly under his general direction, but she would take most of the decisions on a day to day basis for many hundreds of people. She would have to be a strong character who would resent any abuse from her husband and her relations would support her.

 

[Damoiselle]

What Oggbashan said, for one thing. While women were regarded as property to be exchanged, that was complicated in the upper classes. One guy promises his daughter to another to cement an alliance, but if the guy who marries her is abusive, there are a few big issues. For one, probably someone in her family still gives a shit about her dignity--not only because they care for her, but because she's also a extension of her father's and family's identity. A guy who takes a wife and then abuses her is disrespecting the arrangement itself.

So it would be way more likely that a rich guy who found that his new wife spoke out of turn could get away with snubbing her than actually physically punishing her. Starting an affair, refusing to attend to her at social functions. Etc.


That said...

http://www.william-shakespeare.info/elizabethan-women.htm


This talks about the whipping stool, which was apparently a common method for punishing disobedient children.


Depending on how much of an a-hole you want the guy in the story to be, he could maybe get ahold of a whipping stool and punish his wife that way (the a-hole factor ramps up if this triggers a childhood trauma response from her). Keep in mind though, that this would be seen as--at best--eccentric behavior.

edit: There's a way to make this work so that he gets to dole out a punishment and she won't make a fuss--if her family is in bad financial straits or has lost power, she might be more interested in pacifying him than rocking the boat, but the point is that the normalized method of punishing noble women you're hoping to find, didn't exist.

 

[oggbashan]

The sort of women who could be, and were punished often, were servants.

Making a modern woman a servant in Elizabethan times would work.

 

[NotWise]

I haven't studied much about Elizabethan England, but in Italy or Spain at that time, a husband who mistreated his wife could face reprisal from his wife's family.

 

[Damoiselle]

The sort of women who could be, and were punished often, were servants.

Making a modern woman a servant in Elizabethan times would work.

And anyone who begs or prostitutes themselves. That was seen as volunteering to be a human punching bag.


"Was."

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Henry II of England had his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned for 15 years. That was rather earlier than Elizabeth’s reign.

Physically punishment for noblewoman was probably uncommon. Loss of status and loss of access to her children would have been seen as terrible punishments. Going back to Henry II, Eleanor was locked away while Henry openly dallied with another. Indeed, Many kings openly kept mistresses.

 

[oggbashan]

Henry II of England had his queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned for 15 years. That was rather earlier than Elizabeth’s reign.

Physically punishment for noblewoman was probably uncommon. Loss of status and loss of access to her children would have been seen as terrible punishments. Going back to Henry II, Eleanor was locked away while Henry openly dallied with another. Indeed, Many kings openly kept mistresses.

Kings could do that. They made the law and until much later Kings were deemed above the law.[See PS below] Noblemen couldn't. What Henry VIII, Elizabeth's father, did to his wives, was impossible for a nobleman, indeed until he split from Rome and the dictates of the Pope, it was impossible for Henry too.

PS. Magna Carta didn't really change that. It was an agreement forced on King John who later retracted it, only to be forced to reinstate it. Subsequent Kings agreed to continue it which is one reason why English Kings were never as despotic as French Kings. They knew they governed by consent of the nobility (not the people at this time). When a King died, the law was in abeyance until a later date when laws were deemed to have a continuing existence. The Civil War and the execution of Charles 1st changed everything.

 

[Scareltt]

Pear of Anguish?

Or maybe not. After googling it sounds like it was never really used for what I thought.

Well it is fantasy, so if you wanted to try...

Of course it could also be used on a man.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I really wonder how much of what we think we know on this subject is accurate. From the standpoint of the story, it doesn't matter. One only needs to be consistent. I've always been skeptical about the reality of that particular situation, though. We examine it through two filters: the filter of the writers of the historical sources, and the filter of which parts of reality were publicly acknowledged. I've always felt there was a discordant note to the portrayal. Elizabeth certainly pushed reforms in this area, but the fact that she was making the reforms demonstrates that there was a need for them. She was a very impressive and powerful monarch, but not so powerful that she didn't have to make political sacrifices. One's standing with the crown may have dictated how closely laws had to be obeyed. That was certainly the case with previous monarchs.

In a society where men and even the entire village tied women to stools and dunked them or put them in bridles like metal gags simply for being "scolds," all of which usually involved a semi-naked parade through town, it's hard to believe that the attitude stopped at the upper-class mark. It's much easier for me to believe that it was kept behind closed doors and in greater check among the upper classes, because of the politics of marriage.

Women, even upper-class women, were dependent on male relatives their entire lives unless they managed to have no male relatives and no husband. That kind of dependency makes me wonder how free women really were to complain about their treatment. Their fathers didn't want them to return to their families, after all. The dowry was paid. An unmarriageable daughter was an expense with no strategic advantage. There's also the fact that disobedience toward one's husband was considered a religious crime, which adds a whole new layer.

The final thing that gives me pause is that we are to believe that upper-class men in the Elizabethan era treated their wives better than men treat their wives today.

I don't know a great deal about upper-class women in the Elizabethan era. What would be compelling to me is if there are examples of upper-class women who made a habit of embarrassing their husbands in public, assuming the families were on equal enough social footing, of course.

Maybe it is just my inner brat that cannot imagine following the strictures of the day without very strong incentive.

Am I just being suspicious?

 

[lovecraft68]

I really wonder how much of what we think we know on this subject is accurate. From the standpoint of the story, it doesn't matter. One only needs to be consistent. I've always been skeptical about the reality of that particular situation, though. We examine it through two filters: the filter of the writers of the historical sources, and the filter of which parts of reality were publicly acknowledged. I've always felt there was a discordant note to the portrayal. Elizabeth certainly pushed reforms in this area, but the fact that she was making the reforms demonstrates that there was a need for them. She was a very impressive and powerful monarch, but not so powerful that she didn't have to make political sacrifices. One's standing with the crown may have dictated how closely laws had to be obeyed. That was certainly the case with previous monarchs.

In a society where men and even the entire village tied women to stools and dunked them or put them in bridles like metal gags simply for being "scolds," all of which usually involved a semi-naked parade through town, it's hard to believe that the attitude stopped at the upper-class mark. It's much easier for me to believe that it was kept behind closed doors and in greater check among the upper classes, because of the politics of marriage.

Women, even upper-class women, were dependent on male relatives their entire lives unless they managed to have no male relatives and no husband. That kind of dependency makes me wonder how free women really were to complain about their treatment. Their fathers didn't want them to return to their families, after all. The dowry was paid. An unmarriageable daughter was an expense with no strategic advantage. There's also the fact that disobedience toward one's husband was considered a religious crime, which adds a whole new layer.

The final thing that gives me pause is that we are to believe that upper-class men in the Elizabethan era treated their wives better than men treat their wives today.

I don't know a great deal about upper-class women in the Elizabethan era. What would be compelling to me is if there are examples of upper-class women who made a habit of embarrassing their husbands in public, assuming the families were on equal enough social footing, of course.

Maybe it is just my inner brat that cannot imagine following the strictures of the day without very strong incentive.

Am I just being suspicious?

Its not, its bullshit used top push a narrative. Shows like Game of Thrones featured rape galore because 'it was like that back then" was it? Research tells otherwise, and even that....no one living today was there then, and its naive to think anything was ever recorded accurately...I mean unless people really think The Walls of Jericho were blown down with a horn

And most religious and historical works-at least acknowledged ones-were written by men for men, so of course domestic discipline is touted to be a thing.

Men have been insecure bullies since day one, that's the real 'fact'

Just people looking for an excuse to be free with their hands with women.

This shit belongs in the LW section with the rest of the abusers and trash.

 

[lovecraft68]

A noblewoman would probably been exempt from any punishment. She would have her own powerful relations who could react badly to any suggestion that she was abused.

Probably the worst that could be done is for the husband to absent himself from the marital bed, or even from that particular residence and acquire a mistress.

Physical punishment of noblewomen, while under the rule of a Queen, would be social suicide.

The scandal of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, whose first wife fell down the stairs and died is an example of the disgust which a wife-abuser would have faced. Even though a coroner's court decided it was an accident and Leicester wasn't there - it wrecked him socially.

I think you would have to set the story in the middle or lower classes.

PS: Most noble marriages at that time were dynastic. Neither the bride or groom had any choice in their selected partner. The woman would only have to 'obey' her husband in the matter of sex for producing children. About the only time they would be alone together is in bed. All the rest of the time there would be many servants around. Any discourtesy from one to the other would become common knowledge.

The husband would be likely to away from home a lot of the time, either at court or at war. While he was away the wife would run the whole family estates, possibly under his general direction, but she would take most of the decisions on a day to day basis for many hundreds of people. She would have to be a strong character who would resent any abuse from her husband and her relations would support her.

Meanwhile here in the US there were laws put in place against cruelty to animals before any real domestic laws came into effect

animals before women

And this society hasn't changed a bit.

 

[oggbashan]

Meanwhile here in the US there were laws put in place against cruelty to animals before any real domestic laws came into effect

animals before women

And this society hasn't changed a bit.

Here in the UK we have a ROYAL Society - RSPCA to protect animals; and NATIONAL Society - NSPCC to protect children.

We introduced legislation to look after pit ponies used in coal mines before the children who also worked underground.

 

[SimonDoom]

My guess -- it's just a guess, but I think a reasonable one -- is that historical records do not tell the full picture of the degree to which women of all economic classes were victims of physical abuse within marriage at that time. Some men just do this, and I imagine it's always been so. There would have been powerful social forces then, just as there are now, for both men AND women to keep quiet about it and not let anyone know, so I imagine many men got away with bad behavior that history never knew about.

In the OP's fantasy scenario, the heroine, who lives the life of a 16 century countess, does so apparently only by virtue of her marriage in the past. If she is from the future she has no family in the past to help defend or protect her. So she would be at the mercy of her powerful rich husband.

 

[NotWise]

In the OP's fantasy scenario, the heroine, who lives the life of a 16 century countess, does so apparently only by virtue of her marriage in the past. If she is from the future she has no family in the past to help defend or protect her. So she would be at the mercy of her powerful rich husband.

At least in Spain and Italy, the wife did not gain a title by marrying into it. If she married a count, she wouldn't become a countess, she would just be the count's wife. The title had to be inherited. I'm not sure when that changed, but I think it was later than Elizabeth.

I don't know how this varied from place-to-place, but death was for most people the only thing that ended a marriage. On the death of the husband, any child they had would remain in the father's family, and the woman would return to her own family.

 

[YDB95]

We introduced legislation to look after pit ponies used in coal mines before the children who also worked underground.

In America, my understanding is they didn't really need legislation to protect animals used in the mines: they cost the company money, so it was in their best interest to take care of them. Children not so much - there were always more looking for work!

 

[Bramblethorn]

FWIW: https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/women/

"A man was considered to be the head of a marriage, and he had the legal right to chastise his wife. However, it is important to understand what this "headship" meant. It did not mean, as if often supposed, that the husband was able to command his wife to do anything he pleased, in other words, be a petty tyrant. He was expected to take care of her, make sure she had everything she needed, and most importantly to love her and be a good father to any children they had. If a husband felt the need to chastise his wife, then he was not allowed to be cruel or inflict bodily harm. If he did abuse his wife, then he could be prosecuted or prevented from living with her."

The author has a Master's in Elizabethan history. Her sources are listed here: https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/sources/family.html

I am not a historian and don't have the time to chase them up, so I can't vouch for the accuracy, but at first glance that does appear to be support from somebody with decent cred.

As for the question of why an Elizabethan nobleman might have been less violent towards his wife than the modern-day equivalent, I will just note that forensic toxicology wasn't invented until the 1850s, and poison has historically been a great equaliser for battered wives.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

FWIW: https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/women/

"A man was considered to be the head of a marriage, and he had the legal right to chastise his wife. However, it is important to understand what this "headship" meant. It did not mean, as if often supposed, that the husband was able to command his wife to do anything he pleased, in other words, be a petty tyrant. He was expected to take care of her, make sure she had everything she needed, and most importantly to love her and be a good father to any children they had. If a husband felt the need to chastise his wife, then he was not allowed to be cruel or inflict bodily harm. If he did abuse his wife, then he could be prosecuted or prevented from living with her."

The author has a Master's in Elizabethan history. Her sources are listed here: https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/sources/family.html

I am not a historian and don't have the time to chase them up, so I can't vouch for the accuracy, but at first glance that does appear to be support from somebody with decent cred.

As for the question of why an Elizabethan nobleman might have been less violent towards his wife than the modern-day equivalent, I will just note that forensic toxicology wasn't invented until the 1850s, and poison has historically been a great equaliser for battered wives.

I think what gives me pause is not the credibility of the historian, although historians are often prone to romanticizing, but that the historian can only rely on the record. I have doubts about the reliability of the record.

"Poison has historically been a great equaliser for battered wives" is a quote for the hall of fame. I do think, though, that the utility of poison as an equalizer was dependent on the woman in question not being worse off without a husband than with one. A choice between the lesser of two evils sometimes isn't much of a choice.

I'm not insisting that the generally accepted history is wrong, although I think it is suspect. I think it's fair to say that the generally accepted history has glaring inconsistencies that call it into question. I don't mean inconsistencies within the historical record. I mean inconsistencies with itself. One standard for the minor nobility and another for the masses is such an example. While the criminal code was explicitly different according to class, domestic abuse or even discipline isn't something that's always codified. The quoted passage doesn't even make that distinction, yet we know that punishments for wives included ducking stools and scold's bridles for such minor offenses as nagging. We know a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as the stick wasn't wider than his thumb. These are verifiable facts from illustrations, historical accounts of the day, and even laws of the day. They don't jive with the benevolent authority that's presented in the passage or in generally accepted history.

We know Elizabethan girls were punished with whipping stools. (I still don't know why they call those things stools.) I don't think it makes sense that girls would be brutally punished, but only until they were married. We know adultery by a woman was a capital offense. We also know that marriage was allowed as early as 12 with parental consent, or earlier with judicial consent. I think the average age was around 14, even though the age of consent was 21 unless dear old dad signed off on the marriage. Of course, daddy dearest benefited from accomplishing the marriage contract as early as possible, both in terms of achieving strategic benefits sooner and in terms of ridding himself of an expense. (Yes, I am cynical.)

If women were free of severe domestic punishment, I would expect to see at least a few notable women in the historical record who gave their husbands hell. I find the women of whom I'm aware in the historical record suspiciously well behaved. I just feel like it doesn't add up.

I do imagine poison was quite popular.

 

[ishtat]

In terms of physical violence and domestic abuse there is considerable evidence that women in Elizabethan and pre-Elizabethan times were better rather than worse off. The best evidence of this is in the "Paston Letters" which have survived. They date from 1422 to 1459 and illustrate the importance of women as managers of both families and household finances. Margaret Paston was particularly impressive in managing her husbands business and estates whilst he was away. Women were an essential part of the family as an economic unit and it was not in a husbands interests to mistreat her (apart from what her family might do). Arguably with the advance of Protestantism and greater stress on Pauline interpretations of women's role, the respect towards women gradually decreased, and especially with the advent of the industrial revolution; when the home as an economic unit diminished in importance.

It is interesting to note that in Catholic southern Europe where the industrial revolution came much later, that women retained a pre-eminent role in domestic financial matters, perhaps a hangover from the custom of peasant society.

In my own family's case a forbear left land "goods cattel and wyf" to his male cousin provided that his wyf retained the use, husbandry, (management) and income from them until "she be dead". (Date of that will was 1485)

At least read the wiki article on "The Paston Letters"

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think what gives me pause is not the credibility of the historian, although historians are often prone to romanticizing, but that the historian can only rely on the record. I have doubts about the reliability of the record.

IME, historians are well aware that records are compiled by people, and that they shouldn't always be taken at face value.

We know a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as the stick wasn't wider than his thumb. These are verifiable facts from illustrations, historical accounts of the day, and even laws of the day.

...no, we don't. This is a myth, apparently based on a made-up etymology for "rule of thumb". Although many people have claimed that such a law once existed in Ye Olde Englande, there's no evidence that it actually did.

We know Elizabethan girls were punished with whipping stools. (I still don't know why they call those things stools.) I don't think it makes sense that girls would be brutally punished, but only until they were married.

Once married, a "girl" was no longer a girl.

We know adultery by a woman was a capital offense.

You might be thinking of Henry VIII's wives Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. They were executed under a provision that made it treason for a man to have intercourse with "the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried [which would be fornication rather than adultery], or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir" (since that would threaten the legitimacy of the succession). Their alleged lovers were also executed.

During Elizabeth's reign, that particular law would presumably have been moot - there was no King, so no such roles existed.

I'm no historian, but my understanding is that outside that one very special case, adultery wasn't even treated as a crime during Elizabeth's reign - although there was some leeway for vengeful husbands who might kill an adulterous wife and/or her lover. It did become a capital offense in 1650 during the Puritan years, several decades after her death, but that was repealed again in 1660.

Sometimes what "everybody knows" ain't so.

 

[AlinaX]

We know a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as the stick wasn't wider than his thumb.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2009/04/rule-of-thumb.html

It’s true that a husband once did have the right under English common law to “give his wife moderate correction,” according to Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765). But the old right, Blackstone said, began to wane in the 1600s (and thumbs were not in the picture).

Nobody connected thumbs with chastisement until 1782, when an English judge, Francis Buller, supposedly ruled that a husband could beat his wife if the rod or stick were no thicker than his thumb.

There’s no published record of his comments, but the judge was viciously ridiculed in the press and caricatured in cartoons of the day, which labeled him “Judge Thumb” and “Mr. Justice Thumb.” He was fiercely criticized because no such law or precedent existed.

I'm sure I read more about this recently. I'll try and find it.

ETA: https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2019/06/27/the-rule-of-thumb/

 

[Narci]

Thank you all ! This is wonderful information and will help me write my story.

I think I will go with a role-playing scenario of a disenfranchised noblewoman who married a widower who is a step or two below her former station.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Thank you all ! This is wonderful information and will help me write my story.

I think I will go with a role-playing scenario of a disenfranchised noblewoman who married a widower who is a step or two below her former station.

I would be careful about one thing. Caste or class was incredibly important to people then. While there were indeed some social climbers and while the trend was increasing by Elizabethan times, you pretty much stayed in your own class.

Exceptions were made, curiously enough, for noblewomen marrying rich merchants, but keep in mind that marriage - especially for members of the nobility - was rarely about love. Arranged marriages were very common and were generally based on political allegiances and preservation of wealth/property. A cash-poor nobleman might agree to marry one of his daughters to the son of a rich merchant. The son retained his noble status and the family coffers were refilled through her arranged dowry. The marriage would also bring some noble blood into the merchant's family, something of value back then. The girl's potential distaste of being married below her was perhaps balanced out by a higher standard of living than she would have had in a nunnery, not that she had much choice.

The dynamics were complicated, obviously. Dowries, I seem to recall, were either inherited by the eldest child of a marriage or - key - returned to the widow if there were no children. What would be her reason for marrying a commoner?

FWIW, I started a story last night which opens with a couple in this very situation. Coincidence rules the world!

 

[Damoiselle]

I think what gives me pause is not the credibility of the historian, although historians are often prone to romanticizing, but that the historian can only rely on the record. I have doubts about the reliability of the record.

"Poison has historically been a great equaliser for battered wives" is a quote for the hall of fame. I do think, though, that the utility of poison as an equalizer was dependent on the woman in question not being worse off without a husband than with one. A choice between the lesser of two evils sometimes isn't much of a choice.

I'm not insisting that the generally accepted history is wrong, although I think it is suspect. I think it's fair to say that the generally accepted history has glaring inconsistencies that call it into question. I don't mean inconsistencies within the historical record. I mean inconsistencies with itself. One standard for the minor nobility and another for the masses is such an example. While the criminal code was explicitly different according to class, domestic abuse or even discipline isn't something that's always codified. The quoted passage doesn't even make that distinction, yet we know that punishments for wives included ducking stools and scold's bridles for such minor offenses as nagging. We know a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as the stick wasn't wider than his thumb. These are verifiable facts from illustrations, historical accounts of the day, and even laws of the day. They don't jive with the benevolent authority that's presented in the passage or in generally accepted history.

We know Elizabethan girls were punished with whipping stools. (I still don't know why they call those things stools.) I don't think it makes sense that girls would be brutally punished, but only until they were married. We know adultery by a woman was a capital offense. We also know that marriage was allowed as early as 12 with parental consent, or earlier with judicial consent. I think the average age was around 14, even though the age of consent was 21 unless dear old dad signed off on the marriage. Of course, daddy dearest benefited from accomplishing the marriage contract as early as possible, both in terms of achieving strategic benefits sooner and in terms of ridding himself of an expense. (Yes, I am cynical.)

If women were free of severe domestic punishment, I would expect to see at least a few notable women in the historical record who gave their husbands hell. I find the women of whom I'm aware in the historical record suspiciously well behaved. I just feel like it doesn't add up.

I do imagine poison was quite popular.

Not every rule is historically superseded by class.

But a lot of rules are historically superseded by class.

I have no doubt that there were a lot of husbands who smacked their wives behind closed doors, even among the nobility...but the stakes of doing so (especially openly) are just different, riskier, when the person you're smacking has influential connections.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Not every rule is historically superseded by class.

But a lot of rules are historically superseded by class.

I have no doubt that there were a lot of husbands who smacked their wives behind closed doors, even among the nobility...but the stakes of doing so (especially openly) are just different, riskier, when the person you're smacking has influential connections.

Approaching this from a cynical perspective: no doubt plenty of Elizabethan noblemen were violent abusive types, but they would usually have had easier targets at hand.

Once they'd produced an heir and a spare, AFAIK there wasn't much expectation on the couple to spend time together, or indeed for the husband to remain monogamous. Noblemen were so comfortable with acknowledging their bastards that there's a surname convention for it - "Fitz-" basically means "illegitimate son of". And they had plenty of servants to kick around with far less risk of blowback.

FWIW, the theme of "nobleman mistreats a noblewoman, and gets done over by her aggrieved family" shows up several times in Shakespeare - I can think of three off the top of my head, and my Shakespeare is far from exhaustive.