B.’s Comments (group member since Feb 16, 2012)

B.’s comments from the Q&A with V.R. Christensen group.

V.r. wrote: "Do you mean The Woman in White? I can find it, I think. It's quite funny.

I was in no humour for trifling, and I resolved to make him understand what I meant.

"Oblige me by giving that man permis..."

Yup! That's the bunny! :D :D

V.r. wrote: "There were a series of acts, all of them starting out the similarly when they hit parliament, but then, once the MP's had their way with it, it was all so watered down it was hardly a victory it at..."

Yums. (Licks chops greedily)
It was their uncle Frederick; cracks me up; Ian Richardson does/did him brilliantly in both tv versions.
(Burps genteelly and reaches out paw for extra large scone) #KittensLikeLargerPortions #NomNom

V.r. wrote: "Amazon will be promoting Of Moths & Butterflies for free March 1-3. Another giveaway will be hosted some time later in the month. For announcements, visit the author's website, or for more timely e..."

Whoooot! :)

V.r. wrote: "So glad you're comfy Miss B. Do have some tea and scones.... Clotted cream? Why yes! Ah, you are so right. It is far more complex. Collins dealt a bit with the codiciles and trusts etc that were su..."

CLotted cream . . and jam. Raspberry, or blackcurrant, if you have . . .
I was puzzled by the dates, cos the 1870 act actually allowed women to hang on to money they earned (although still a little vague re property)but yes, movement was ongoing to make changes.
Still, hardly surprising that some women who had money deliberately chose to stay single, thereby keeping hold of it.There was a lot at stake.
Re Wilkie Collins : "No Name" : this novel goes very much into the business of property for illegitimate children - he was often accused of writing merely sensationalist stuff, but he portrayed some highly individual heroines, and Magda is no exception; red-headed, bold, resourceful, a gifted mimic, she is empowered in his fiction in a way females in Dickens rarely were; by contrast, he actually dares to show female character and individuality (even if at times he concedes to public opinion - well, he had to sell his stuff, after all . . ). I like him for his adventurous style,someone who challenged a lot of what was happening in society, both in his writing and in his private life.
(Those scones were jolly good, by the way . . .got any more ?)

V.r. wrote: "Before the Married Women's property act of 1872 (which went into effect January 1883) a woman who married could keep only her portable goods, no money, no income made off of property owned. She cou..."

I meant to keep up with these. I have fallen behind ! My pennyworth :
I think the whole question of property laws is much more complex than is often portrayed by novels, films, etc. It’s written up by lawyers, after all. If parents were foresighted enough, they could try, through wills and marriage contracts, to ensure that the husband could not lay a hand on the wife’s property – this too has cropped up as plot material in occasional novels; entails and life interests and so on. Wilkie Collins took a particular interest in these problems and the situation of women; a woman’s plight often lies at the core of his plots.
As for opportunities to work : a neat summary of work opportunities from BBC History site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/...) (with some interesting photos; I like the one of the hat factory workers!)- excerpt :
“Domestic service of all kinds was the single largest employer of women (40 per cent of female occupations stated in the census of 1851 in provincial cities and 50 per cent in London). The textile and clothing sectors came a close second. Women were also found in large numbers in metalwares and pottery and in a variety of petty trades, especially in towns: confectionery, brewing and other provisioning, seamstressing, laundry work, cleaning and retailing. Because many sectors which employed large numbers of women were concentrated in certain regions of the country (as with the cotton and woollen industries of south Lancashire and west Yorkshire), the statistics of female labour force participation varied across the country.”
Money was key. Status was everything. (Does that sound much different from many areas of society today ?)Men and women with money had(have) independence; it was possible to do things unthinkable for those less well off.
It came down to being prosperous and respectable: this was the final aspiration. It wasn’t so unlikely to find a huge range of jobs carried out by women, who ended up running businesses after their husbands died and so on.
Apart from working in service, for those who had education there was the position of governess to be considered (and again, Anne Bronte left behind her account of the misery and drudgery that could befall, based on personal experience).
There were businesswomen, landladies, traders, innkeepers, seamstresses and factory workers as well as the brothel keepers and successful courtesans. There was the theatre and there was nursing – both often associated with ‘easy morals’.
And just how many of the above would have made it to the tea parties at grand houses ? A few of them did – Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde and Charles Dickens give edgily entertaining insights into what could and did happen in High Society.

The strictures of society were many – but at the same time, the desire to discover and explore was even stronger – so we have among others, women explorers like Mary Kingsley, or travellers like Lady Florence Dixie (nee Douglas), also a war correspondent among other things, and Mary Slessor, a lone missionary working in Nigeria. What most of these individuals had in common was – personal wealth.

We are told this kind of independent behaviour was not considered ‘suitable’ or ‘appropriate’ at the time– and yet it went on, and Mary Kingsley’s books for example were a huge success.

It’s a complete mish-mash, awash with contrasts and contradictions – and as money became more accessible (the dustman’s rise to fortune in Our Mutual Friend is a pretty illustration of the kind of thing that could happen) so the barriers were changed, battered, thrown up into the air. It’s a huge heaving mass of humanity,that has inspired and continues to intrigue and inspire today. Perhaps because of the contrasts with today – perhaps too because of the similarities . . . Society was and is in constant flux.
Money tied up in property and law – there was the rub; still a problem today, where you end up with millionaires signing pre-nuptial agreements. So in many ways, wide apart yet still the same. Both exhilarating and depressing. “Are we evolving at all?”, we cry . We might be turning into blobs with no feet, as we shall lose the need for them, stuck behind computer screens . . .:P

(oops, hope this isn't too long! Shall I shorten it ? :))(Oh, and my bustle is very comfortably arranged, thank you most kindly !)