PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

The Public Discussion

By the eighteenth century, the traditional view of parental authority was slowly changing, in part because the basis of marriage was in the process of changing from property, social position, and wealth to love, companionship, and personal happiness. The basis for and the extent of parental authority were widely debated, both by ministers and laymen.

The conservative Richard Allestree upheld the extreme position that parental authority in arranging a child's marriage was absolute:

of all the acts of disobedience, that of marrying against the consent of the parent is one of the highest. Children are so much the goods, the possessions of their parents, that they cannot, without a kind of theft, give away themselves without the allowance of those that have a right in them... it belongs to children to perform duty, not only to the kind and virtuous, but even to the harshest and wickedest parent (The Whole Duty of Man, 1751).

Initially, Patrick Delany asserted an absolute parental authority over the child:

But there is one instance, wherein obedience to parents is of more importance to children than any other in life, and yet where they too often fail to pay it; and that is in the article of marriage: for, as long as children continue a part of their parent's family (which must bee till they think fit to dispose otherwise of them,) they are absolutely in their parent's power, and have no more right to dispose of themselves than they have to dispose of the parents' fortune, or inheritance, or any of their goods (Fifteen Sermons upon Social Duties).

Prudent parents well know, that such accomplishments as either arise from, or tend to establish true worth, can alone render any pair happy in an union that must last for life. This, I say, all prudent parents very well know; and therefore are best fitted to make a right choice for their children; but still with this caution, that they do not offer violence to their inclinations, by forcing them to marry against their will. For the rest, it were infinitely better that perverse children should actually die in the disappointment of their inclinations, than that they should make both themselves, and their parents, for ever miserable, by an unfortunate and undutiful marriage.

Bishop William Fleetwood expressed a more liberal and compassionate view:

Children have a great duty, but they are not tied like Slaves in all cases and with bonds that will last forever; but when they do not obey, they must do it with reluctance; and it must be in cases of great and lasting moment and concern, and such, as when represented to fair and equal, wise and understanding People, they may find themselves both pitied for their Trials, and approv'd for their Resolution (The Relative Duties of Parents and Children, Husbands and Wives, Masters and Servants, 1705).

Fanny Burney's Experience

Richardson on Duty

The want of duty on one part justifies not the non-performance of it on the other, where there is a reciprocal duty., There can be no merit, strictly speaking, in performing a duty; but the performance of it on one side, when it is not performed on the other, gives something so like merit, that I am ready almost to worship the good mind that can do it.