Women in the late 18th century and Marriage?

During the late 18th century, women from wealthy class are usually required to marry those of the same class. And then a portrait is made of the women (if from wealthy class).





Is there any proof that shows this is true? Or is it not true?Women in the late 18th century and Marriage?
Most people in the late 18th century would marry those of their own class. Peole tended to mix socially with those of the same or similar background. Wealthy people would be likely to have their portraits painted, because it was the custom in those days, there were no photographs, and if you could afford to employ an artist to paint your portrait, it was a status symbol. A lot of people were amateur artists and would paint portraits of family members. Sketching and painting were considered ladylike accomplishments, and women in particular would often paint portraits of other family members.Women in the late 18th century and Marriage?
In the 18th century, women from all classes married those of the same class. This is how it was done. No laws or anything, just custom.





Portraits were made by wealthy families for all sorts of reasons. I have a portrait of my g-grandmother, painted when she was a child in the 1850-1860 time. She was in a wealthy family, but about the 7th child (3rd or 4th daughter). The portrait is high quality, although the name of the artist has been lost. Still, it was unusual to have such a painting done for someone so far down the list. She married a gentleman cleric, which is great, as their grandchild was my father, and without them, I wouldn't exist! There are no paintings that I am aware of showing them in their later years, although they lived long enough for photography, and I do have some of them.





Remember, the social patterns of this period were customs, not rules. There is little that is hard and fast. It is much like today - women get married (first marriages in any case) in white dresses. There is no rule, but that is what almost everyone does, a custom that began with Queen Victoria. I would guess if Diana had been wearing a blue dress when she married Prince Charles, and their marriage had lasted, that we would be seeing lots of blue wedding dresses today. Until fairly recently, people at weddings just wore their best clothes - little special at all.





However, you are correct in your observation that the women was under the man. She took his name, but he took her property, often as part of the marriage contract. In paintings of couples, often the man is sitting, and the woman is standing behind him. Again, not a rule, but a reflection of the custom of the times.
You mean find a textbook reference to that effect?





Can't do that for you.





BUT...if you looked in a reference book, i am betting you could find out what the average family ';lived'; on in the 1700's.





Bearing in mind the the non gentry usually lived on $100 dollars a year during the Civil War, you could then offer as fact that few if any families could spare the money needed for a portrait.





If you know someone in Art History, they might actually be able to tell you what a painting would cost back then.





But no,...I can't think of a single book that will produce your answer. but i can suggest several that could give a decent ballpark.





Not sure about the wearing/posture tradition...
look at the portraits. remember these woman had NO rights whats so ever. especially during the French Revolution. They had more rights before it that after. So if the portraits have a man and a woman who are dressed like aristocrats then they are both just that.