"But I could not come too you again-break up everyone's life afresh."
Ross to Elizabeth three years after 'The May Incident' 'The Four Swans'
After that 'May Incident' in 93 Ross did not go to see Elizabeth and only met with her by chance some three years later at the Sawle Church Graveyard in 1796. Elizabeth, who after wishing him dead in her thoughts and displaying a visible anger of him, had eventually calmed down when she suggested to him that he may have regretted what he done to her. As quoted above from this scene in the sixth book 'The Four Swans', Ross told Elizabeth in reply that he "could not" come to her and break up everyone's lives. From this, one might think this this suggested that part of Ross may have actually wanted to go to Elizabeth and therefore to break up his life with Demelza and her life with George too. So this scene in the book and after Ross's return to Nampara invites a consideration of Ross separating with Demelza and this is what this post will explore.
From an emotional point of view previous posts 'A Discovery of Preference' and 'Reassurances and Reaffirmations of First Choice' both actually explore the question of whether it was a matter of the head rather than the heart that caused Ross to stay with Demelza, instead of separating to be with Elizabeth. They do both document that this was far from the case, with the first of those posts focusing on Ross's journey of discovery that he did not have a 'real and true love' for Elizabeth. The second focused on how, along with the author's verification, Ross was able to convey with conviction to Demelza that his real wish and his heart's desire was to be and stay with her. So in the end this choice of Ross's for Demelza, instead of Elizabeth, was made irrespective of practicalities because it was based on feeling rather than obligation or rather than just having to regretfully take what was left for him.
It seems that Ross's words to Elizabeth at the Church Graveyard were phased deceptively in a spirit of peace and diplomacy. No doubt this was so that Elizabeth could feel comforted that he may have wanted to come to her. In light of her anger and Ross's great wrong to her it was fair that he take that approach rather than for Ross to have offended Elizabeth once again by implying that his offence was all for nothing and that she had experienced his attack on her when leaving Demelza never was the merest consideration for him. Nevertheless this post explores whether logistically Ross could have separated with Demelza for Elizabeth if he really wanted to. It will serve to address a questionable assumption that either way Ross had no choice but to stay with Demelza regardless of his wishes. This post will make significant historical references to personalities of the time and their separation scenarios in order to provide context of the times. So the focus here will be on the practical issues around processes and societal attitude to enable Ross and Demelza to separate, while the post to follow that called 'Ross and Demelza- Falling Into Separation' and 'Demelza's Three Offers To Leave Ross- Ross's Resistance' will focus on the emotional narrative of how they as an estranged couple fell into a state of separation with Demelza in particular leading the way with this against Ross's resistance. Thirdly in this quartet of essays 'Demelza’s Hall Pass' will similarly to this post cover the practicalities and societal attitude should Ross have wanted Elizabeth as his mistress.
An Option To Divorce?
'Parliamentary divorce was unsatisfactory: it was an exceptional procedure, with long times deriving from the need to recure to three different courts, and high costs , which made it accessible only to privileged people ..."
So, to start with, was it possible for Ross to have left Demelza and gone to be with Elizabeth formally? For instance, such as by divorcing Demelza and then remarrying or just being with Elizabeth?
In 18th century England and from before then the concept of marriage was meant to be for life as an eternal vocation and spiritual bond. Nevertheless it is true that divorce was available at that time. However, this was only 'technically' so as in reality it was not really available to all. This is because it was so expensive that even reasonably well off gentlemen found it too expensive. Therefore divorce back then has been referred to as a ‘privilege for the extremely wealthy’ of that age.
In fact, at the start of the 18th century divorce was only for noblemen. Since the then powerful Catholic Church had refused to grant King Henry VIII a divorce in the Tudor age of the 16th century, it was his alternative way out using parliament to obtain a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, that then paved the way for the parliamentary divorce in the 18th century. The significance was that a parliamentary divorce would also allow men to be able to remarry. However the need to secure an act of parliament for a divorce in this process is at it sounds. It was very complex with various hurdles and limitations. This included the need to first be issued with a formal separation ('a mensa et thoro') obtained not necessarily with ease from the Church. Thereafter divorce had to be initiated by the man since a woman had no right to petition for divorce in that period of time. Then on top of that there was the fact that it required favourable clearance from two previous courts, the hearing of evidence (including witnesses) and a favourable finding of adultery by the wife before the proceedings could be finalised and a bill of divorcement obtained. Thus, all that long drawn out bureaucracy and proceedings together with the huge expense were incredibly taxing and cumbersome barriers which made the divorce process a rarely sought one in order to formally dissolve a marriage. Essentially divorce was an option that in real terms was not really an option.
A Disastrous Royal Marriage And Divorce Battle
Wedding of King George IV & Queen Caroline |
Painting of Queen Caroline of Brunswick |
Queen Caroline attending her divorce trial |
Divorce - Impossible For Ross
'More than that, parliamentary divorce admitted a different treatment of men and women, as it was reserved only to husband in case of wife adultery,
For this post the relevance of the divorce battle between Queen Caroline and King George IV is to highlight just how hard it was to secure a divorce in the very age that Ross and Demelza were living in. In fact it would still have been quite challenging and drawn out even if the wife and, in this case Queen Caroline, had consented to the divorce. But when considering Ross's situation, since a husband's infidelity was not even a ground for divorce (though a wife's infidelity was), with him being the guilty one in his own case with Demelza, it would not have been possible for Ross to get far at all in the process. Ross could not have been able to petition for divorce based on his own infidelity and Demelza, simply because she was the wife would then not have been permitted to petition on this basis either. The law would not change for another 64 years where she would then have been allowed to petition on this ground (of adultery) or exceptional cruelty. With that being the case a divorce for Ross and Demelza was out of the question on a number of counts and while men of the lower class men engaged in the vulgar practice of selling off their wives in markets as an alternative to divorce, given that vulgarity that was not the case for men of the gentry who sought to find a more civilised alternative.
An Option To Separate?
"You may separate physically but neither of you may marry anyone else."
Ross Poldark to Clowance Poldark about marriage to Stephen Carrington ('The Loving Cup' Internal Book Chapter?)
Whilst divorce was generally an impossible option, in the 18th century, separations as an alternative were commonplace instead. Evidently this was why in the case of The Prince of Wales turned King George IV, it was an easy task within that first year of marriage for him to have issued Princess Caroline turned Queen Caroline with a separation letter with terms of the agreement on their separation. In any case, regardless of this, as stated above they had proceeded to live separately soon after the marriage anyway. After moving abroad Queen Caroline did not returning until six years later in 1820 when her husband's father had died. Accordingly George IV then inherited the crown and became King, with Caroline becoming Queen and wanting to be crowned like him at the coronation arranged. Despite public support she was refused entry. Naturally, knowing what was done in those times as custom Ross was conscious of separation as a option when a marriage had broken down. This is evident from when he had spoken of this in 'The Loving Cup'. Here he had advised his daughter Clowance about the chance of a possible failed marriage to Stephen Carrington if she were to go ahead with this. He warned her that "You may separate physically but neither of you may marry anyone else." Of course he would have known that this was an option for himself during his near marriage breakdown with Demelza after 'The May Incident' of 1793 and even following her unfaithfulness with Hugh Armitage in 1797. Being a woman of the times Demelza will have known this for herself too.
Elizabeth Suggested A Separation Too
"I will leave for Trenwith in the morning. We can come to some arrangement-some separation."
Elizabeth to George Warleggan 'The Four Swans' (Internal Book 2 , Chpt 9 part 4)
Even Elizabeth entertained the idea of a separation with George when she threatened this in 'The Four Swans'. She told him "I will leave for Trenwith in the morning. We can come to some arrangement-some separation. I can live with my parents. You can do what you please. This is the end..." In referring to coming to 'some arrangement', she was clearly referring to the reasonable expectation (as was custom then in the gentry) that they could reach a suitable financial separation agreement. Naturally this would include an agreement to cover her maintenance and child care and child education costs. Whether Elizabeth really intended to follow through with this proposal is debateable but her raising it shows that as a woman of her time Elizabeth saw this option of separation as a realistic one she could at least threaten George with. Also Graham narrated how rumours of George and Elizabeth's possible separation were not outrageously shocking to Caroline Enys who gossiped about this to Demelza in 'The Angry Tide' (Internal Book 3 Chp8 Pt2). Graham wrote of Caroline shrugging when Demelza expressed surprise only because Elizabeth was pregnant with another baby at the time (Ursula Warleggan). Not only does this suggest how unsensational separation was in those days in their society but it also suggests that should Ross have wanted this for himself it was a possibility for him to separate with Demelza and presumably, however little or large, to reach a financial agreement with her too. It would have aroused some gossip in the first instance but it would not have been incredibly scandalous of unorthodox.
There were other occasions in Graham's narrative where he made it clear from the characters perspective that separation was not out of the question. In fact days after 'The May Incident' on 9th May 1793, Elizabeth was in a quandary of mixed emotions having been taken against her will by a man she thought loved her while having agreed to marry a man whose personality and reputation was problematic, but whose money solved all her problems. As she considered in 'Warleggan' what Ross might have to offer her she thought that 'They had no money to run away. Ross had not proposed it.' Hence Elizabeth considered that the idea of a married man separating with his wife and going away with her was feasible. If not for her belief that they needed money for this (perhaps since she had an expectation of a certain level of high maintenance), and she thought this meant leaving the area which in some ways was more scandalous. But this is significant as Elizabeth is often thought of as being the most conservative of women who was trapped by social customs. And yet she was here acknowledging that separation along with running away was an option in that time period and society provide Ross had a solid proposal. Again this is not to say that Elizabeth was prepared to follow through and that instead the focus of her thought was in keeping with her long term wish for ascendancy in his mind that Ross had not propose it, since so her wish would be that he at least wanted to leave Demelza for her.
A Different Story For Morwenna
“We are bound together by the vows of matrimony, and so I cannot leave you.”
Morwenna The Reverend Ossie Whitworth ‘The Four Swans’ (Internal Book2 Chpt 7 Pt2)
Morwenna was another character that wanted a separation from her husband The Reverend Ossie Whitworth but in case she touted this idea while expressing it was not an option for her. Indeed Winston Graham therefore documented that a possible and practical separation was not always an option for all members of the gentry and where Elizabeth was able to threaten George that that this was a option she was prepared to pursue in some individual situations that would clearly have been an empty threat by the woman. There did still need to be a certain power dynamic and civility between the estranged spouses for such arrangements to follow smoothly. Whereas in today's world due to the greater independence and near equality of women in this modern society, it is even possible for a woman to make a unilateral decision to leave her husband with or without a separation agreement because perhaps they could maintain themselves financially to a similar standard, this was not quite the case in the 18th century even within the gentry. This is why even when Morwenna had grounds for a separation as she announced to Whitworth that she knew he had had a sexual affair with her sister Rowella, Morwenna, she still said to him “We are bound together by the vows of matrimony, and so I cannot leave you.” This is because her situation had layers that made separation less likely
Morwenna's marriage was essentially a forced one. From the start the force and pressure had been applied by George, Elizabeth, Whitworth and his mother lady Whitworth and then Morwenna's own mother primed by Elizabeth added the final pressure. There was no love in this marriage and the nature of it was not to be a near partnership such as the marriages of Ross and Demleza, Dwight and Caroline and even George and Elizabeth, but Morwenna was to bet totally subservient to Whitworth and entirely for his pleasure without consideration for her happiness and wellbeing at any point. Indeed that included marital rape. Short of denying her husband the carnal pleasures of marriage a long time after he had been taking this regardless of her wishes, Morwenna had little power in her marriage. Such was the case that she was only able to refuse him this for a period of time alongside a threat to kill their son if he took this against her will.
The difference for Morwenna is that her husband Reverend Whitworth was a monster of a husband who had no inclination for respect and common decency to Morwenna. He would not have agreed for Morwenna to leave him and if he did this would not have been under a civilised agreement where she was maintained by him. He would rather avoid all liability but perhaps if not for the public judgement of it, as a man of the gentry but without a genuine instinct of morality Whitworth would probably have liked to have put Morwenna up for sale like men of the lower class. But for the same reason as him being installed as a man of God for the Church and having to maintain his faux image of this, he would never have agreed to a separation. Hence when he was actually keen on a separation his attempt to secure this was instead by trying to get her consigned to a mental asylums (as they were known as then).
Indeed when it came to marital separation so much depended on the good will, basic decency and morality of the husband, since the power dynamic and financial power in the patriarchal society was in their favour. Neither Demelza or Elizabeth will have had to face the level of vindictive cruelty from their respective husbands in separation though Elizabeth had a better support network even if George’s separation offer was poor, as she at least had her parents and their estate, whilst Demelza had nothing. That would mean that the woman's circumstances and character to navigate the terrain and all that came with separation was also a factor. Demelza did not consider returning to her home (as it was suggested in the 2015 series). She intended to find work and look after herself. But many women of the gentry would not have that independent fighting spirit or the willingness to accept a loss of status and comfortability if their particularly circumstance would require this upon a separation. It would be a vulnerable position to be in.
Based on all of the above, in the case of Ross and Demelza as willing a cooperating participants of a separation arrangement it is not the case at all that it was impossible or so impractical for them to be separated. This is supported by how Graham went on to document that to some significant extent Ross and Demelza did actually experience a significant period of separation after Ross had sex with Elizabeth that May night in 1793 which could then have lead to a physical separation. This is covered in the next post 'Ross and Demelza- Fall into Separation'. This will instead focus on the emotional element of Ross and Demelza falling into separation and their different attitudes to this generally with Demelza making sure that Ross understood that this could be pushed to the extreme covered in the a later post.