Editing Coverture (section)

== Principle ==
Under traditional English common law, an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of ''feme sole'', while a married woman had the status of ''feme covert''. These terms are English spellings of medieval [[Anglo-Norman language|Anglo-Norman]] phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be ''femme seule'' "single woman" and ''femme couverte'', literally "covered woman").{{citation needed|date = September 2021}}

The principle of coverture was described in [[William Blackstone]]'s ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'' in the late 18th century:

{{Blockquote|By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.<ref>{{harvp|Blackstone|1769}}</ref>}}

A ''feme sole'' had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name, while a ''feme covert'' was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. As expressed in [[Hugo Black]]'s dissent in ''[[United States v. Yazell]]'', "This rule [coverture] has worked out in reality to mean that though the husband and wife are one, the one is the husband."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Yazell/Dissent_Black|title=United States v. Yazell|via=Wikisource}}</ref> A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband.{{citation needed|date = September 2021}} On the other hand, a ''feme couvert'' could not be sued or sue in her own name.<ref>Andrew J. Graham, [ Criminal Liability of Spouse for Theft of the Other Spouse's Criminal Liability of Spouse for Theft of the Other Spouse's Property], ''St. John's Law Review'', Vol. 16, pp. 78-90 (1941).</ref>  In certain cases, a wife did not have individual legal liability for her misdeeds since it was legally assumed that she was acting under the orders of her husband, and generally a husband and a wife were not allowed to testify either for or against each other.<ref>"[https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Gender.jsp#gendercrime Gender in the Proceedings: Gender in Crime]", The Proceedings of the Old Bailey; accessed 2021.09.10.</ref>

A queen of England, whether she was a [[queen consort]] or a [[queen regnant]], was generally exempted from the legal requirements of coverture, as understood by [[William Blackstone|Blackstone]].{{citation needed|date = September 2021}}