I was doing a little research into one of the Regency staples the other day -- the rescued waif. This story standby typically involves a girl adopted into a noble family, treated as one of them, inheriting with the others.
Would this actually work? I asks meself.
So I look about a bit and decided,
loosely speaking -- yes.
Strictly speaking -- no.
And isn't that helpful?
Sometimes we speak of 'adoption' in a fuzzy, imprecise way. But there's an important distinction between legally taking a child to stand in the position of a biological child with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that versus assuming care and custody of a child in a limited or informal way.
Until
the 1920s, there was no formal legal mechanism for adopting children in
Great Britain.
No. I didn't know that either.
I just love finding out stuff when I go researching.
"Why any kid would want to be an orphan is beyond me."
Miss Hannigan
What you had in Britain was just a whole variety of fostering, indenture, wardship, guardianship, apprenticeship, and various less-formal-arrangement-ships . . . but nothing that put the child on an equal footing with children born in a marriage.
So how did they manage the whole orphaned-child problem?
Ordinary working folk, from simple decency or from a desire for another pair of working hands, would often take in a neighbor's child when the parents died. Mistress Taylor down the road might take in a girl who could help with her little ones. The local vicar might find space for another scullery maid in the kitchen. No official legal guardianship was established, but everybody in the village likely sighed in relief and went on to other problems, of which they doubtless had a plenitude.
If no
one stepped forward to care for orphans, they 'fell upon the parish',
which was a hard place to land.
Local officials might solve the
problem of these pesky orphans by apprenticing them.
This apprenticeship was a mixed bag.
For parish orphans, it might be called the poor man's guardianship. The contract gave the master rights over the child, but also bound him to feed, clothe, care for the child, and train him or her up in a trade. In earlier centuries, apprentices were often treated as part of the household -- an extended quasi family of Master, servants and apprentices. Even in 1820, in Rural Rides, Cobbett could still speak of traditional farms where master and servants, dairymaids and the farmer's daughters sat down at the same table, a disparate but united household.
Unfortunately, few localities had the funds to bid children to desirable places. (One common form of charity was to leave money in one's will to buy apprenticeships for poor boys.)
Some orphans got lucky. Some, like Oliver Twist, not so much.
Looking up into the upper echelons of society, since that's where the fictional orphan above will end up --
The
laws and customs of primogeniture meant that men of substance, titled
or untitled, would often consider themselves
responsible for a widespread group of family, friends and dependents.
They'd snabbled the property and money. The flip side of that
concentration of wealth was they were expected to take care of the
family.
So your average Merchant Prince or belted earl (why belted and how was everybody else holding up their trousers?) might have a pack of widows, spinsters, dotty great uncles and assorted orphans, only tenuously connected to him, land on his doorstep, expecting to be provided for.
Remember in Heyer's Frederica. Our heroine applies to the 'head of the family' — a very distant cousin — for assistance. He was the winner in the big primogeniture lotto. Time to pay up, bucko.
Another sort of fosterage was not uncommon. Couples without children of their own would often foster a child,
usually related, and raise it as their own. The child would inherit
from this couple through the will. For instance, Jane Austen's brother
Edward left his birth family to be fostered by a much richer cousin, Thomas Knight, and eventually inherited
the Knight estates.
Then there were guardianships. I do not know why Romance heroes and heroines are so unlucky, but there are just troops of them under some kind of guardianship.
There were several sorts of legal guardians.
First off were guardians in socage. This is for heirs and heiresses of landed property. You do not have real estate, this is not for you.
Blackstone says, "socage . . . who are also called
guardians by the common law. These take place only
when the minor is
entitled to some estate in lands, and then by the common law the
guardianship devolves upon his next of kin, to whom the inheritance
cannot possibly descent ; as, where the estate descended from his
father, in this case his uncle by the mother's side cannot possibly
inherit this estate, and therefore shall be the guardian .
For the law judges it improper to trust the person of an infant in his
hands, who may be possibility become heir to him." Blackstone's Commentaries
What that is saying is that if the young woman has a piece of property -- say a nice house or half of Northumberland or something -- her guardian will not be the father's brother who is just bound to have wicked intentions toward her. The custody of the child goes to the closest blood relative who cannot inherit, who will scheme to marry her off to his fish-lipped son.
Second, we have guardians by nature. That's going to be the father, first off, and the mother, if the father is dead. When the father does not explicitly appoint a guardian for a female under sixteen, the guardian was the mother. Her guardianship extends until the girl reaches 21. An mom doesn't get control of the property. Only to the custody of the child. A man will be appointed guardian for the property.
Joan Wolf's The Arrangement deals with a situation of this nature.
Finally, there's the 'guardian by statute', or 'testamentary guardians'. This guardian is the one spelled out in a will. If we want young Hannah Tweeting to be left in the care of Lord Farthing, all we have to do is put Farthing's name in her father's will.
". . . enacts, that any father, under age or of full age, may by deed or will dispose of the custody of his child, either born or unborn, to any person, except a popish recusant, either in possession or reversion, till such child attains the age of one and twenty years." Blackstone's Commentaries
Only the father could appoint a guardian, not the mum. If the appointed guardian was unable or unwilling to serve, the guardian didn't have the right to substitute another. If nobody was named guardian or if the unfortunate man died, this ended in the Court of Chancery, where nobody wins. One didn't inherit a guardianship. What all these formal and informal relationships had in common was that the child did
not legally become the child of the foster parents, equal in all
respects to those born to that couple. The relationship
between foster child and foster parent or between guardian and ward was always more limited than modern adoption.
In Her Ladyship's Companion, my heroine Melissa was abandoned on
the doorstep of a Vicarage and raised by the Vicar as his own. The
difference between a foster child taken in by kindness and a legally
adopted daughter of the modern sort becomes apparent when, upon the death of the Vicar,
poor Melissa is kicked out to fend for herself.
So, could a titled nobleman adopt a child?
As I say, sorta.
While I was looking at this subject, adoption, I ran down a mental list of fictional orphans -- Jane Eyre, Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, (just about everybody in Wuthering Heights), Tom Jones, Superman, Pip of Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, Harry Potter, Fanny Price, Moll Flanders, John Worthing (The Importance of Being Ernest), Penelope Creed (Heyer's Corinthian), Tarzan.
My favorite is Kim.
I just like his sass and style.
So tell me, who is your favorite fictional orphan and why?
One lucky commenter (US only) will win a copy of Mischief and Mistletoe.
Interesting post!
I recently read a book where the heroine had adopted her nieces and nephew in her husband's absence and they made it sound like the nephew could inherit the title. Otherwise, it was a pretty good story, but it did give me pause...
Posted by: Phyllis | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Heyer's books are rife with young lady orphans. Two of my favorites are Kitty Charing in Cotillion whose guardian will bequeath her his fortune only if she marries one of his great-nephews, and Hero Wantage whose life changes when Viscount Sheringham marries her after being rejected by the Incomparable Isabella Milborne in Friday's Child.
Posted by: Linda S | Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Hi Phylis -
I almost added a note to say that titles passed through legitimate blood only and couldn't be inherited by foster children. I didn't though. Then I figured, 'Everybody knows that.'
Apparently not ...
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:15 AM
Hi Linda --
Batman: "We're all just orphans. You're an orphan, I'm an orphan, Robin's an orphan..."
Superman: "... Spiderman's an orphan."
Batman: "Oh, yeah! And Ironman, and Cyclops, and Wolverine-- all the X-Men.”
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:19 AM
Fascinating post, thank you, Joanna. When I was researching my family tree I came across a number of children in the 19th century who were "unofficially fostered" or farmed out to other family members. Like Edward Austen, only on a smaller scale, there was one lad who was adopted by the rich relatives (they had a carriage, my grandmother said!) and inherited their fortune. Others were usually taken in after a parent died.
Posted by: Nicola Cornick | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:39 AM
Wonderful information!
Anne of Green Gables? Was she orphaned or just sent to live with the aunt and uncle? Whichever it was, I love her!
Posted by: Elizabeth seckman | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 05:01 AM
I marvel at the number of kids who were in some sort of unofficial extended family.
And I know this happens all the time nowadays.
Again and again, the family tree shows a sort of successive chain of responsibility. The kids from a first marriage end up being raised by their stepfather's second wife's husband and his new wife.
Then you figure out the last 'new wife' is actually their mother's second cousin because everybody in the county is related.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 05:01 AM
Hi Elizabeth --
It's been so long. I think Anne was straightforwardly orphaned ...
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 05:11 AM
The Secret Garden and A Little Princess had girls who lost their parents (sort of in the case of the latter).
What an interesting article especially on the 7th anniversary of the day my sister adopted my nephew. Both of us are adopted as well so it's always interesting even how different countries work now - for better or worse - as well as how children fared years ago.
Posted by: april | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 06:07 AM
My favorite orphan is definately Harry Potter. I, along with my young granddaughter, have followed him through each and every one of his movies and some of them 15 or more times! He has given me many wonderful hours of entertainment with my granddaughter and I thank him heartedly for it!!
Posted by: Betty Hamilton | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 06:24 AM
Romancelandia is filled with orphans, isn't it. Just think of all those feisty Regency heroines who would be sent to bed without their supper if there were a responsible adult in the house.
But orphanage (if there is such a word) is a grand device for enabling a boy to create himself (like Adrian) or for a girl to do something other than fancy needlework. There are all those Amanda Quick heroines who take advantage of the absence of parental authority to create a career for themselves. Though if you want to toss in a dose of realism, they must have had some difficult if unmentioned times at the start.
One of my favorite orphans is Daphne Wade in Laura Lee Guhrke's Guilty Pleasures. The thing that endears her to me is the fact that she doesn't forgive the grandfather who refused to help her when she was alone and penniless but instead bawls him out. And in front of other people to boot!
Posted by: Lil | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 06:51 AM
I want to be a popish recusant, at least where stray possums are concerned. Wonderful post, and one I wish I'd read a few books ago.
Posted by: Grace Burrowes | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 07:02 AM
Great post! Love all the information. People have already mentioned all my favorite orphans, I think. Anne, Harry, Mary, Bruce Wayne... ;) I don't want to be an orphan at any age, but reading about them holds so much allure!
Posted by: Anna Bentley Tremaine | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 07:21 AM
The first that came to mind was Tarzan - I grew up watching those old black and white movies and often played at swinging on weeping willow limbs and calling to the neighborhood wildlife, but Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and Harry Potter should be included. My favorite thank-goodness-she's not-an-orphan is THE LITTLE PRINCESS.
Posted by: Debbie | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 07:30 AM
I loved this post! Thank you. Personally, I have a soft spot for Heyer's feisty orphans, and Jane Eyre has long been a favorite for her quiet dignity and integrity. Funny to think of Harry Potter in the context of historical orphans, but I love those stories too.
I have to chuckle at the unreality of the life of orphans in Regency romance stories - don't they all end up winning life's lottery?
Posted by: Donna | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 08:10 AM
Freckles, in a 1904 Gene Stratton-Porter novel by the same name - just because it came to mind when you asked about orphans. I must have read the book more than 50 years ago.
Posted by: Polly | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 08:12 AM
Mill River Recluse, by Darcie Chan. Read it recently, (excellent read, btw), and there is an "orphan"... of sorts, but can't say who it is. That would totally spoil it. :)
Love the blog, JoB.
Posted by: Sofie Couch | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 09:48 AM
In the U.S., too, things seem to have been of the "sorta" variety. I had a grandfather on my mom's side who was apprenticed to a carpenter when his parents ended up in the lunatic asylum (actually its official name). His younger siblings were taken in by their maternal uncle, but Grandpa Will stayed with the carpenter until he enlisted in the Union Army (and after the war, the carpenter took him to court and made him finish his apprenticeship - no time off for service to his country).
Posted by: Karenmc | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 09:55 AM
I just started reading Tom Jones yesterday.
I really wish some authors would study inheritance laws more. I have read so many books where they get things wrong, when it's really not that hard. Some of the mistakes are actually quite creative, and I really have to wonder what they were thinking.
And this is part of what caused so many problems with India- because they did allow adopted children to inherit.
(None of the first few Roman emperors were direct descendants of each other, either. Which is really not relevant, but I found it interesting.)
Posted by: Margot | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 03:55 PM
Hi April --
I love Secret Garden and Little Princess. And what very different protagonists in the two books, even though they're much of the same era and both about young girls.
Somehow the books I read as a child have stayed with me while the books I read last week ... well, let's be kind and just say they didn't.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Hi Betty --
HP's dysfunctional home looks to me like the author showing the feelings of a child alien to the world in which he lives. He escapes from it.
The Secret Garden, OTOH, is a child alien to the world in which she lives changing herself to conquer her environment.
Little Princess is more child enduring hardship bravely. She escapes and there's somehow a feeling that virtue is being rewarded.
I guess every age has its thematic children's story.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:32 PM
Hi Lil --
I'll have to track down the Gurke book -- I do like her work.
Romancelandia needs heroine with agency, and they'll have more of that when the pesky parents are tidily swept away. Or tidally swept away, I suppose, if they're on a ship.
I think about all my protagonists are effectively de-parented, more of less.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Hi Grace --
Law at the time seems to be sprinkled with little gems like that.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:39 PM
Hi Anna --
Literature would be a poorer place without its orphans.
I thought of another one -- the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Hi Debbie --
I liked the Tarzan movies. But I loved the Tarzan books.
They put them all out in paperback when I was about twelve and I read through the lot. Man, do I love adventure stories.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Hi Donna --
Romances are all about catching the brass ring. Winning the lottery. Kissing the duke.
So it's rags to riches and what could be more ragged than an orphan.
The young girl in the posting on the right with her shawl wrapped about her is an eleven-year-old arrested for 'stealing iron' and sentenced to seven days' hard labor. I guess that might maybe have been prying nails out of railway tracks ...?
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Hi Polly,
I have never at all heard of that book, though the author seems vaguely and distantly familiar.
Now you have me curious. I will bop off and have a look.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Hi Sophie --
Good Book, huh? I will keep an eye out for it.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Hi Karenmc --
Now I want to know if he had to finish out the apprenticeship -- somewhat a la Pirates of Penzance.
Despite Dickens, the Waterbabies and the maltreated climbing boys of Romancelandia, apprenticeship was a workable and humane system for centuries. A teen could have learned most businesses in a year or two. They didn't have to make apprenticeships seven years. The boys started so young, not just to learn, but so they could grow up as part of the craft organization. Part of a sort of family, really.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Hi Margot --
Isn't it cool the way the Romans solved the succession problem. So clever and practical of them. I'm really peeved at Marcus Aurelius -- of all people -- for breaking the line of 'good rulers'.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 04:58 PM
At the risk of being picky, in Frederika, she applied to a man her father liked, but they were not related. Great information.
Posted by: Ella Quinn | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Oooh. Right you are. It's been too many years since I read it.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 06:24 PM
I believe that in Anne of Green Gables, they went to an agency of some sort which placed orphan children to help with work - on the farm or whatever. Anne was brought home to help with the housework or farm work.
My father (born in 1919) and his brother were 'farmed out' to a distant relative to live with the family and work on the farm. Their mother was unable to raise 3 children on her own. They stayed with the farm family until they were ready to go to high school and then came back to live with their mother.
Posted by: j prince | Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 09:10 PM
Jo, I love your illustrations, especially the first one. *G*
Being orphaned definitely makes for more interesting stories, and given mortality reates in the past, it wasn't all of that uncommon.
A good example of a happy apprenticeship scene is in A CHRISTMAS CAROL, when Scrooge is reminded of the happy holidays during his apprenticeship with Mr. Fezziwig, who made sure everyone had a good time. Where Scrooge fell in love with Belle....
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 07:34 AM
Joanna, yes, he finished the apprenticeship and went on to build spiral staircases. I believe his marriage had to be delayed until the apprenticeship was over, but eventually he was a respected businessman and father of seven.
Posted by: Karenmc | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 07:35 AM
Hi J. Prince --
We forget how much the early 20th century was a continuation of the 19th century. No social services to speak of. The extended family was your safety net.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Hi Mary Jo --
Now why didn't I think of that happy example from Dickens instead of all his horrific ones?
Posted by: joanna bourne | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Hi Karenmc --
We tend to forget how, a century or two back, marriage was put off until the man inherited his bit of land or finished the apprenticeship.
The rich could marry young. The skilled laborer or striving professional man had to wait till he was established.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Oh MAN... Joanna... now I have to completely RETHINK a WHOLE BOOK! but that is for another day. ;)
Posted by: Sarah | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Anne Shirley has already been mentioned several times. Other favourite orphans are Heidi and Pollyanna.
Posted by: Liz | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Hi Sarah --
Oh dear ...
Posted by: joanna bourne | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Hi Liz --
I've never read Pollyanna, though I rather enjoyed the movie. I'll keep an eye out for it.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 09:20 PM
My Favorite orphan in literature is Harry Potter. I was hooked from the moment I picked up the first book. Sometimes I still think about what might be happening to Harry now!
Posted by: Marie | Friday, November 16, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Oh, Kim. He's the model for Harry Potter doncha know. And I loved the way Laurie King brought him back to life in The Game. Kim is the only novel written about the Raj while the Raj was still in power.
Posted by: Artemisia | Monday, November 19, 2012 at 08:37 AM
I didn't know Harry Potter was influenced by Kim. How cool.
I will now go glom onto Laurie King's book, which I didn't know about. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Monday, November 19, 2012 at 08:43 AM
Now, the HP/Kim connection is only in my own head. But the parallels are there: orphan with no knowledge of heritage meets up with holy man/wizard mentor and embarks upon voyage of discovery leading to defeat of menace. It's an old quest paradigm even used in Anne McCaffrey's Dragon series. But please do read The Game. I love Mary Russell.
Posted by: Artemisia | Monday, November 19, 2012 at 04:33 PM
What a fascinating post. I knew fostering was common, throughout history. I didn't realize adoption as we know it didn't start until the 1920s.
My favorite orphan is Frodo Baggins, followed by Harry Potter and Anne of Green Gables. There's a courage and tenacity, a will to go on against all odds.
Posted by: Judy | Monday, November 19, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Frodo -- Yoiks. I'd forgotten about him.
Sometimes I think we see the 'call to adventure' as less 'cluttered' for an orphan character. They're not protected by -- and don't have to worry about -- the folks back home.
In LOTRs that's a contrast, right from the first, between Frodo and Sam. Frodo, who will eventually leave the Shire, is free of close ties there. Sam, who will return home to stay, goes back to t'Gaffer and Rosie.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Monday, November 19, 2012 at 05:40 PM
I love Mary, in The Secret Garden.
And those cat photos!
Ooh, which reminds me, I have Her Ladyship's Companion on my Kindle and am finally starting to read books on my phone. Gotta move that up in the pile.
Posted by: deniz | Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 06:43 PM
I hope you enjoy it.
The idea of reading bookjs on a phone makes me sort of dizzy, actually. I think I am not suited to the modern world if it includes Tolstoy on the telephone.
Posted by: joanna bourne | Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 05:14 AM