If a female, english, Victorian aristocrat (~1880) is unmarried, but owns no property and lives on the dime of her relatives (brother, father), am I correct to think that she is NOT considered to have 'feme sole' status, as recognized by the law?

by delicious_downvotes

From what I understand, a single, unmarried woman under English Victorian law ~1880 would have a 'feme sole' legal status instead of 'feme covert' (which is the status she would have if married).

But what I don't understand is if this status is also based on her dependence on others? For example, a single, unmarried woman who has her own property and such would be 'feme sole'? But what about a spinster aristocrat who is completely dependent on the money/ lodging of her family? She's not married, but she has no properties, etc... would she still be 'feme sole' because she is single and unmarried?

I just want to make sure I'm using the term correctly. Thank you!

cecikierk

I don't recall ever reading about the financial control extends beyond a woman's husband, since English and American common law only defined feme covert in terms of marriage and not other forms of dependency. In addition coverture was first reformed under "Married Women's Property Acts", so I further suspects that it only applies to marriage.