And the beat goes on....

Women had a stake in the results sure enough....they just didn't have a voice in the decision making that produced those results.

And certain landholders had a stake in the results that ensured that their slaves were staked to their master's whims, wishes and economic well being.

 

Women were chattel, and had no say, other than "pillow politics" where a woman might try to sway a husband to her views.

 

I understand what the status of women was at that time....and I dare say that in some fundamentalist households, women are largely treated like chattel still today. However, women still had a stake in the prosperity of their household(and by extention the prosperity of their community and nation)...even if a significant number of their husbands were worthless, womanising,gambling, drunkard SOBs who were inclined to squander their wife's dowery away.

 

Another good series is the Kent Family Chronicles by John Jakes. I've listened to them several times and still enjoy them.

 

click to expand.
She had no stake, because she has no say in how the property was used. None. Yoi can infer rights that did not exist, you can dress it as you like, but it is not true. You can say what should have been, but not what was. Chattel had no politics and no vote, no say in current affairs, no control over the property. It is not today's standard, but it was accurate then, and you can not retro-apply principals to historical events. HISTORY IS WHAT IT IS, AND IS NOT A PLASTIC THING. It does not change on a whim, or alter with daily perceptions. What should have been, is invalid.