This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/gay-marriage-cougar-wives-victorians

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
From gay marriage to cougar wives, the Victorians have much to teach us From gay marriage to cougar wives, the Victorians have much to teach us
(about 5 hours later)
The Victorians are the perpetual defendants in a kangaroo court presided over by the present – so often indicted and rehabilitated that the effort grows wearisome. But the recent news that May-December romances were more common in the 19th century – and that the woman, at least in the 1841 census, was 61% of the time the older partner – forces yet another look at our starchy (or sexy?) ancestors.The Victorians are the perpetual defendants in a kangaroo court presided over by the present – so often indicted and rehabilitated that the effort grows wearisome. But the recent news that May-December romances were more common in the 19th century – and that the woman, at least in the 1841 census, was 61% of the time the older partner – forces yet another look at our starchy (or sexy?) ancestors.
There are famous instances of such Victorian "cougar wives": Disraeli's wife, Mary Anne, was 12 years older than her husband. It was rumoured at the time that Disraeli (under siege from his creditors) had married her for her money. Later he came to relish her other virtues.There are famous instances of such Victorian "cougar wives": Disraeli's wife, Mary Anne, was 12 years older than her husband. It was rumoured at the time that Disraeli (under siege from his creditors) had married her for her money. Later he came to relish her other virtues.
Still, what needs revising is less our picture of the Victorians than our perceptions of ourselves, their enlightened descendants. The cloud of dust that the children and grandchildren of the Victorians kicked up about their emotional habits has masked how surprisingly wide the definition of a "normal" family was in the 19th century – especially as compared to what came later. Still, what needs revising is less our picture of the Victorians than our perceptions of ourselves, their enlightened descendants. As I argue in my forthcoming book, Family Secrets, the cloud of dust that the children and grandchildren of the Victorians kicked up about their emotional habits has masked how surprisingly wide the definition of a "normal" family was in the 19th century – especially as compared to what came later.
For starters, there is family size. Not until the 1920s and 1930s did the two-child family increasingly become the standard. For the Victorians, what counted as normal was widely divergent: it was as common for a couple to have no children as it was to have three, six or eight. In the 1870s, as the historian Michael Anderson has pointed out, one quarter of all British children lived in families with at least 11 siblings, assuring a diversity of life trajectories within a single family.For starters, there is family size. Not until the 1920s and 1930s did the two-child family increasingly become the standard. For the Victorians, what counted as normal was widely divergent: it was as common for a couple to have no children as it was to have three, six or eight. In the 1870s, as the historian Michael Anderson has pointed out, one quarter of all British children lived in families with at least 11 siblings, assuring a diversity of life trajectories within a single family.
In an era in which larger families were common, both dependence and variation were to be expected. By contrast, as families became more homogeneous (and marriage nearly universal in the late 1930s), deviations from the norm were more difficult to accept. By legend, it is the Victorians who stashed inconvenient relatives away in their attics. In fact, the families of the mid-20th century – smaller and keenly attuned to deviance – may have kept even more secrets.In an era in which larger families were common, both dependence and variation were to be expected. By contrast, as families became more homogeneous (and marriage nearly universal in the late 1930s), deviations from the norm were more difficult to accept. By legend, it is the Victorians who stashed inconvenient relatives away in their attics. In fact, the families of the mid-20th century – smaller and keenly attuned to deviance – may have kept even more secrets.
In the mid-20th century, for instance, families sought to hide away for a lifetime mentally disabled children whom their Victorian grandparents had cherished at home. In the records of the Normansfield institution, founded by Dr John Langdon Down, after whom the syndrome is named, a century's worth of correspondence with parents demonstrates how family secrets were made of children's lives. For the Victorians, a so-called "imbecile" child was a burden, but not one that had to be concealed. It was the Christian's duty to love and tend the most vulnerable of God's children. Unlike an adulterous liaison or an illegitimate baby, the "backward" child reflected no wicked choice in life and no moral failing – the categories of transgressions that for the Victorians incurred the largest burdens of shame. In the 19th century, children classified as "idiots" and "imbeciles" accompanied parents and siblings to garden parties, and attended pageants and church services, Sunday school openings and military drills.In the mid-20th century, for instance, families sought to hide away for a lifetime mentally disabled children whom their Victorian grandparents had cherished at home. In the records of the Normansfield institution, founded by Dr John Langdon Down, after whom the syndrome is named, a century's worth of correspondence with parents demonstrates how family secrets were made of children's lives. For the Victorians, a so-called "imbecile" child was a burden, but not one that had to be concealed. It was the Christian's duty to love and tend the most vulnerable of God's children. Unlike an adulterous liaison or an illegitimate baby, the "backward" child reflected no wicked choice in life and no moral failing – the categories of transgressions that for the Victorians incurred the largest burdens of shame. In the 19th century, children classified as "idiots" and "imbeciles" accompanied parents and siblings to garden parties, and attended pageants and church services, Sunday school openings and military drills.
That would change in the early 20th century, as mental deficiency was increasingly viewed as inheritable. By the time that the eugenics movement reached its height in the 1920s and 1930s, mentally disabled children of the middle and upper classes were institutionalised at earlier and earlier ages. For their families, a "defective" child meant personal and even professional humiliation. When one illness in a family served as the indictment of an entire bloodline, the silence and secrecy that surrounded the mentally disabled intensified.That would change in the early 20th century, as mental deficiency was increasingly viewed as inheritable. By the time that the eugenics movement reached its height in the 1920s and 1930s, mentally disabled children of the middle and upper classes were institutionalised at earlier and earlier ages. For their families, a "defective" child meant personal and even professional humiliation. When one illness in a family served as the indictment of an entire bloodline, the silence and secrecy that surrounded the mentally disabled intensified.
Other comparisons between the Victorians and we moderns demonstrate the danger of ransacking the past to confirm our own prejudices. As debates about gay marriage bring on another paroxysm of lament about the extinction of the traditional family, the Victorians again prove surprising.Other comparisons between the Victorians and we moderns demonstrate the danger of ransacking the past to confirm our own prejudices. As debates about gay marriage bring on another paroxysm of lament about the extinction of the traditional family, the Victorians again prove surprising.
During the 19th century, women in what some Victorians referred to as "female marriages" lived together, owned property in common, called each other "hubby" or "wedded wife" and were recognised as a couple, including by the traditionalists among their neighbours and friends. What is more, the literary critic Sharon Marcus has trenchantly argued in her landmark Between Women, these relationships – based as they were upon a greater degree of equality – served as a model for those who sought to reform England's restrictive marriage laws. Female marriages conducted openly in the mid-19th century would be driven underground in the following century.During the 19th century, women in what some Victorians referred to as "female marriages" lived together, owned property in common, called each other "hubby" or "wedded wife" and were recognised as a couple, including by the traditionalists among their neighbours and friends. What is more, the literary critic Sharon Marcus has trenchantly argued in her landmark Between Women, these relationships – based as they were upon a greater degree of equality – served as a model for those who sought to reform England's restrictive marriage laws. Female marriages conducted openly in the mid-19th century would be driven underground in the following century.
The moral? The Victorians were not so straitened nor are we so unencumbered as we often imagine. "Nothing", as the writer Elizabeth Bowen observed in 1959, "changes more than the notion of what is shocking."The moral? The Victorians were not so straitened nor are we so unencumbered as we often imagine. "Nothing", as the writer Elizabeth Bowen observed in 1959, "changes more than the notion of what is shocking."