Some women retailers were so well established that they issued their own coins – trade tokens to use as small change during the constant shortage of official coinage. Six trade tokens struck by women dating from 1660-70 have survived.
"Normal Women: 900 Years of Making History" - Philippa Gregory
Mary Winslow Long (1643-1730?) and Grace Parker (16??-1754)
Part of my Aro Week series on Romantic De-prioritization in History.
An artist's rendition of the neighborhood in the early 1700s.
Mary Winslow Long was married at age 20 to a man named John, the inheritor and owner of the Three Cranes Tavern in Charlestown, Boston. Grace Parker was married to a man named Isaac, and together in 1715 they founded a pottery manufacturing studio, the Parker-Harris Pottery Business, across the street. The Parker-Harris business furnished the Three Cranes Tavern with many of their plates, bowls, and cups, as well as their chamber pots.
In 1683, John Long died, and Mary Long inherited the Tavern. In 1742, Isaac Parker died, and Grace inherited the pottery business. Neither woman remarried. Both continued operating their respective businesses as the primary proprietor.
Mary Long and Grace Parker were shrewd, successful, well-regarded businesswomen in an era that frowned on such things. They’re also great case studies for an under-addressed point regarding amatonormativity, especially in history.
See, during the colonial era in the American Colonies, women were not allowed to own property or businesses… unless they inherited it from their father or husband, and they were unmarried. An unmarried woman could own property or own her own business; however, if she married, her property and her business automatically transferred to her husband.
For successful entrepreneurs like Mary Long and Grace Parker, this created a specific financial incentive not to remarry. Regardless of what they may have personally wanted in a romantic relationship, or if they wanted another romantic relationship, they each decided that running their business was more important to them than remarrying. Second and even third marriages were extremely common in this time period; many people remarried after the death of their spouse. It was a very practical matter as well as an emotional one. But Mary Long had a successful tavern, and didn’t need to remarry to support herself, and evidently decided not to. Grace Parker, who was friends with Mary, made the same decision for herself after her husband died.
Romance and marriage have financial and survival pressures attached to them, completely separate from the individual desires of the people involved. They do to an extent now, but they absolutely did in the past. Women in the past often had very little choice but to get married, for financial support and security; on the other hand, women who had financial freedom would have been keenly aware that they would lose that financial freedom if they (re)married. Economics are critical to structuring romance and marriage even today; while women don’t lose all their property when they marry men anymore, many women stay in marriages they don’t want because they share a house, their partner controls the joint finances, or they do not have their own job, retirement savings, or health insurance to support them. How would romantic relationships look different if women in particular were able to disentangle financial survival from romance? Conversely, when given a choice between obtaining romance or keeping financial freedom, what would prompt different individuals to make different choices?
Even in the past, people conceptualized marriage and romance differently, and prioritized it according to their own concerns. Mary Long and Grace Parker, women who certainly were friends and may have influenced each other in their thinking about romantic vs. business priorities, made me think a lot about how we see queerness in the past. For so many people, we can only see what they did. But what they did was influenced by the social structure and social situation around them. Did Mary Long want to get married in the first place? We don’t really know. Did she want to get remarried but didn’t want to lose her freedom, or was she happy she could support herself now? We don’t really know. Did her example influence Grace’s choice to take charge of her business after her husband died and run it with her son rather than cede it to a new husband? I mean, I think that’s likely.
It also puts in sharp relief how women like Mary Anning and Louisa May Alcott were able to stay single because they found a source of income that allowed them to support themselves and their families; while Mary Moody Emerson relied on the support of her family. They made it, but they were also lucky that both financial and social circumstances made it possible for them. How many women in the past didn’t want to get married, but found themselves with no other viable financial option? How many felt their romantic desires took a backseat in their priorities to finances? How sad were they about it, or did they sort romance as just one of many possible priorities, and they chose which ones were important to them?
I’m sure different people had different answers! But also, to me, this strikes a blow against the amatonormative idea that true happiness is finding a fulfilling romance, as well as the idea that everyone who got (gets) married does so as a fulfillment of true love. Which I think are all important considerations, both in studying history, and looking at what people do and want right now.
Impression: it is a great Christmas movie. Finding your way when your lost is no easy deal after living through war. The way this town takes her in... brings hope!
Collection: yes.
Overall: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Concept: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Story: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Storytelling: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Characters: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Casting: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Visually: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Score/Soundtrack: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Entertainment: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Best: Eloise Mumford as Grace. She was fabulous!
Worst: know it is a Hallmark film, but it didn’t necessarily need to be a romance.
This will be my third embroidery challenge, as each time I finish a project faster by setting a strict goal for myself.
For this embroidery challenge I will be stitching a canvas-work piece called Needlework Toolcase. Designed by Mary Long (the amazing lady behind Cleopatra's Cat - just check my portfolio!) this is a smaller piece and I am excited to do it - I haven't done a smaller project in a long time. I have selected my own colours, and because I wasn't able to purchase any of the supplies here, I had to order a few extra colours and canvases, just in case I changed my mind once I saw them in real life - photograph tones/colours can be really different compared to in person.
I am setting the same parameters as the other two challenges - two weeks to complete the challenge, with updates on each Monday (therefore, the completion date should be the 23rd May). Depending on how I stitch over the weekend, I may post an update on the 9th, but only if I've done enough to look at!