On a side note, I love the changes done to this blog as it pertains to the handling of comments. It’s great to have a bit more control of my own replies.

I deliberately didn’t read the preview cause November is far, far away, but I’m looking forward to the story. :)

If I had any money, I’d so bid, but it’s already up to $69. *sigh* Guess I’ll have to wait until Nov.

Historically, Scottish English women wouldn’t while highland women would kick a door down to assert their rights. Of course, it varied from one woman to another (and their families/friends/villages), regardless of location. Both sides had different attitudes. Highlands were all for it while lowlands disapproved. (There were lowlands women ignored the disapproval and enforced the law, but this was more common for women who had nothing to lose.) This is what I meant by ‘cultural difference’.

Why the need for witnesses? Is this like the Muslim divorce where you must state the fact in front of X number of witnesses? And what canny thinking would she have to do? Reasons why she was ditching the SOB? Curious minds…..

Witnesses to support the dissatisfied wife’s request for divorce; to testify that her husband hadn’t been home for three or more years; to testify that the husband was adulterous, or to testify that her husband had been living at a different permanent address for a certain number of days (thirty?)

Anything that would render her husband “dead” will do because it’ll free her from the binding marriage with minimal fuss and without his presence. For men, it wasn’t that easy. I don’t know much about the history of this part, so I won’t say any more.

Canny thinking. So many examples. One extreme example: make an appeal to remove all traces of her marriage from the records of a kirk/church she was married in. If granted, she would be declared as “divorced”. This only worked with certain Protestent churches, though.

One of my ancestors used this method. Her first husband galloped off to Europe with a vague promise to return within two years. After four years, she gave up on him and filed a request to recognise his “death”. They removed the banns and all other traces, making her single, which allowed her to marry someone else.

(I forgot why wouldn’t they just make her a widow. It may to do with the difficulty of proving that he was really dead? Might be easier to make her single? Will have to ask my uncle about that.)

Commonest example:
She could simply refuse to acknowledge her married name, returning to her maiden name or giving herself a new name. Witnesses will testify how long she was known by her single status and chosen name. If long enough, divorce will be granted because her husband wasn’t early enough to challenge her.

Bear it in mind, Scotland is a country where you can legitimately and easily change your name without going through a legal process. Use it long enough–or in a place where people will know you by your chosen name–will have it recognised as a legal name. Because of the casual attitude to changing names and marriages–when women died, they were buried under their maiden/birth names, not their married names.

These are two examples of many, many! :D Hence the canny thinking creative ways of obtaining a divorce.

I have to say, I have no idea whether these practices had any real legal basis. Woudn’t be surprised if it wasn’t, but were common enough to be “legally” acceptable in some areas, e.g. no objections from courts, sheriffs, councils etc.
If it wasn’t legal, many didn’t see a problem with manipulating the legal system to make it so. :D

The practices died out when approaching 20th century, though. When I was a child, divorce was quite rare because it became a social taboo by then. At around that time, people just abandoned their marriages and lived with their so-called “common law” spouses, instead of actually divorcing to remarry. Feh.

Do you really want to go there? :D Joking aside and informally speaking, obtaining divorce was relatively easy and cheaper (comparing with England's process). It can be obtained without (usually) husband's knowledge, too. It required a couple of witnesses and some canny thinking on the dissatisfied wife's part, though. This is as much as I know. For statistics and that sort, I'm the worst person to rely on. :D

Well, I guess not. I was just wondering if it was as difficult as the the law passed through the House of Lords that the English had to endure.

Why the need for witnesses? Is this like the Muslim divorce where you must state the fact in front of X number of witnesses? And what canny thinking would she have to do? Reasons why she was ditching the SOB? Curious minds…..

I should have clarified that I was referring to the cultural difference, rather than legal difference, between Highlanders and Lowlanders. Thanks for calling me on it.

Legal differences? How so? Or is this another can of worms I’m opening now?

When Alistair talked about how Lady Grey had greeted him after coming home, I totally got choked up. I'm such a wuss sometimes. :p

Well, I’m a wuss too, then.

I'm not sure about earlier than that and the distinction she mentions between Highlander and Lowlanders though.

I should have clarified that I was referring to the cultural difference, rather than legal difference, between Highlanders and Lowlanders. Thanks for calling me on it.

I feel that highlanders had a very relaxed attitude towards social conventions and structure (yet very strict about certain customs) while lowlanders — especially the Edinburgh/Border lot were a bit more, erm, traditional?

@Jayne

When I checked the internet, I found that handfasting was legal until the 1940s in Scotland.

Legal? Really? I always understood it as a myth with no legal basis. At best it was a folk custom, like the Maypole dance. Who knew? Where on the internet did you find that?

How easy or hard was it to divorce in Scotland in the 18/19th C if a couple had been married in a religious ceremony?

Do you really want to go there? :D Joking aside and informally speaking, obtaining divorce was relatively easy and cheaper (comparing with England’s process). It can be obtained without (usually) husband’s knowledge, too. It required a couple of witnesses and some canny thinking on the dissatisfied wife’s part, though. This is as much as I know. For statistics and that sort, I’m the worst person to rely on. :D

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't recognize the fairy tale used in this book as anything I've ever read before. Does Hoyt make all of these up as well as the main story? As the story and tale progressed, I could see the parallels Hoyt was drawing between them.

On Elizabeth Hoyt’s website it says that:

A. No. I write the fairy tales all myself. Like all fairy tales, however, they are inspired by other tales. Here's a list of inspirations:

* For The Raven Prince: the Greek myth of Psyche and Eros and “The Princess Golden-Hair and the Great Black Raven,” a fairy tale by Howard Pyle in his book The Wonder Clock (now out of print.)
* For The Leopard Prince: “The Water of Life” from The Wonder Clock by Howard Pyle.
* For The Serpent Prince: very, very vaguely “The Goose-Girl” fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm.

Link: http://www.elizabethhoyt.com/biography.php#faqs

I also got a certain vibe from the older sister and friend. Very similar to some of the female relationships in Amanda Quick’s novels.

And I loved Lady Grey and the puppy. I liked that they weren’t there just to be cute, but had relevance to the plot. When Alistair talked about how Lady Grey had greeted him after coming home, I totally got choked up. I’m such a wuss sometimes. :p

I don't read too many and I haven't read any Hoyt at all so I shall remedy that post haste! :-)

I think you can jump into the series at this point and do just fine with it. Then, if you like her writing and the story, you can backtrack to the others if you’re interested.

The children and Helen were used to a life of luxury, but also one of lonliness.

Good point. Helen often mentioned that they almost never spoke with their father and we see later that they have no familial feelings for him while Alistair has quickly become a major factor in their lives. Even living out in the country in a dirty castle, they’re still getting more “face time” and involvement, more real and meaningful interactions than they ever have with anyone beyond Helen before.

I wasn't sure about the concept of her books -’ sometimes obvious fairy-tale themes or other repeated plots (like the Sabrina plot or the Scarlet Pimpernel plot) take me out of the story -’ but it sounds like she doesn't beat you over the head with it. I can handle that.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t recognize the fairy tale used in this book as anything I’ve ever read before. Does Hoyt make all of these up as well as the main story? As the story and tale progressed, I could see the parallels Hoyt was drawing between them.

As for marriage by cohabitation and repute, this was abolished in Scotland in….. 2006! Family law is not my area, but I recall reading cases about it when I was student that were at that time relatively recent. They tended to be succession cases where the spouse was claiming relict's rights. And yes, as Maili says, Scots law was in the 18th/ 19th centuries much better for married women in terms of divorce rights. I'm not sure about earlier than that and the distinction she mentions between Highlander and Lowlanders though.

Really, 2006? Interesting. I think a handful of states here still accept common law marriages but the number is dwindling. When I checked the internet, I found that handfasting was legal until the 1940s in Scotland.

How easy or hard was it to divorce in Scotland in the 18/19th C if a couple had been married in a religious ceremony?

As for marriage by cohabitation and repute, this was abolished in Scotland in….. 2006! Family law is not my area, but I recall reading cases about it when I was student that were at that time relatively recent. They tended to be succession cases where the spouse was claiming relict’s rights. And yes, as Maili says, Scots law was in the 18th/ 19th centuries much better for married women in terms of divorce rights. I’m not sure about earlier than that and the distinction she mentions between Highlander and Lowlanders though.

I think that, for me, the parts with Abigial actually made the book better. It helped give a sense of perspective as to what a huge step Helen had taken by leaving London. The children and Helen were used to a life of luxury, but also one of lonliness. And I thought that portions with Abigal helped show us that, rather than have Helen tell us that in boring monologues. I also found Abigal to be a very likable character and I thought that Jamie was also well sketched. He really was acting liking a five year old boy. The relationship between Abigial and Jamie was sweet, but not cloyingly so.