Moritz Daniel Oppenheim (1800-1882), Portrait of Gutle Rothschild, 1840/9, photo from the glass negative in the archives of the Jewish Museum Frankfurt. More information.
The obvious answer is that Duke had no sons, nephews or sons-in-law. And the obvious answer is probably the only answer: from what I’ve learned of Duke’s character, he was not ahead of his times in regarding his daughter as able to manage an enormous fortune as well a male heir. It is rare even now for patriarchs to enrich their female offspring equally with their male offspring, one of the habits that reinforce all the prejudices of patriarchy.
I’ve never seen this discrepancy discussed even by feminist historians, perhaps because inherited money is such a vexed issue, raising unanswered questions about the inherent unfairness of our economic system. In Iconic, the magazine left in my hotel room here in Britain, I found a mention.
The article, called “Women of Rothschild” by Natalie Livingstone, from her new book, reveals that the Rothschild fortune, like so many in the US, was made possible by the dowry a well-off woman gave to her husband.
The so-called founder of the enormous Rothschild fortune, Mayer, was enabled by the dowry of his wife, Gutle, who at their marriage in 1770, provided her husband with “essential business capitol.” She also assisted at every stage of his development of the Rothschild bank as well as playing the conventional role of mother, housekeeper and hostess. She was mythologized as the ideal German woman, “pious, frugal and deeply domestic” who refused to leave her marital home in the Jewish ghetto, but history suggests that “she was a lively robust woman who enjoyed the trappings of her sons’ inherited wealth and retained a razor-sharp wit until the day she died.” Her female descendants “choreographed electoral campaigns, witnessed revolutions, traded on the stock exchange” and played pivotal roles in the election of the first Jewish British MP. But they are lost to conventional history.
Years ago when I was researching the background of Henry Flagler, partner in Standard Oil of John D. Rockefeller, who created another fortune when he opened Florida to tourism with the building of enormous hotels and the creation of a railroad linking the Keys, I found that his wives’ fortunes also provided the essential capitol. They, too, are never acknowledged, nor is the inheritance of his third wife, Mary Lily Kenan Flagler Bingham, and her role in establishing the basis for my grandfather—her second husband’s—fortune.
The same set of ignored financial facts can be found in a review of many fortunes, giving another meaning to the cliché, “All great fortunes are founded on a crime.” These facts also lend shadows to the idea of The American Dream: that any man (and perhaps now any woman) can become rich and famous through hard work alone. The devotion of women, the contributions of our money and labor, alone make such success possible.
So if your goal is that kind of success, you’d better start off by finding a rich wife—or if you’re a woman, a rich man.
But how many rich men endow their wives or daughters either through a lifetime of generosity or through their wills?
I’m not sure of the answer. The rules of dowry, long outdated, may still control the distribution of affluence.
It becomes more important every day for us to question this definition of success, as well as the sacrifices of women who enable it.
From another viewpoint, our ability and willingness to cooperate and even to sacrifice for another’s benefit is the model our world needs.
Perhaps this is the sacrifice Speaker Nancy Pelosi made by visiting Taiwan as a representative of the US government. Pilloried by the Chinese in peculiarly personal terms, without open support from President Biden who seemed to criticize her trip, she will bear the brunt for a long time; but could she perhaps—it seems more than possible—have made the trip in the hope of reducing rather than escalating tensions?
Unrealistic, perhaps, but we are often called upon to be peacemakers—and then thrown to the wolves.
This seems a long digression from the subject of the Rothschild women and inherited wealth but I’ve discovered during many years of research into women’s neglected and hidden history, all roads lead to Rome.
Yes. Overturning this stone reveals what has been lying beneath. Important for all to face the reality of yet one more way men have used women — in this case to be sure they got all the money they could under their control. Unfortunately it’s men who need to look at what their forbearers have done and determine to stop doing that, themselves, immediately. For those of us who do want to see reality, your comment today is another important thread in society’s fabric. I say, run, don’t walk, to those who have not read Sallie Bingham’s book about her life and the lives of her family and extended family in which this subject, among many others, is addressed. The whole patriarchal system is such a painful, tragic mess. Wouldn’t life have been so much better if those bound into the system had been able to listen to the insights and analysis that feminists offered everyone in the 60’s -’80’s and started repairing their thoughts and ways? And, yes, I say stop despising women who have, in some way, ended up with more money than most of us. Look at the boys’ story about that; then look at feminists’ revelations about what they have shoved under their story. It’s not pretty but it’s there and acknowledging it might perhaps start change for the better happening.
Fascinating post, Sallie. I once organized a panel of women philanthropists from my members of NM Grantmakers Assn, when I was the Executive Director 2003-2007. I recall that no male members attended, even though they knew they were invited by virtue of their membership. At first, that amused me, but later it annoyed the hell out of me.
It was a panel of five women, two of whom earned their own fortunes and the others inherited from their deceased husbands. The latter group completely changed focus of their giving away from any resemblance to that of their dead spouses. They had no interest in putting their names on buildings, were disgusted by their spouses’ self-dealing, and giving grants to influence/ benefit business colleagues, etc. All of them kept current with their grantees, doing unannounced site visits, providing money management guidance, and were fierce when the funds were used for purposes other than those proposed. One woman was so incensed that she demanded the return of the full award from a prominent, but slightly reckless nonprofit, and she got it. It was a wonderfully enlightened program.
On Nancy Pelosi, I’ve read two biographies on her. Her political instincts are fairly acute, I think. And as she matured in her role, much like Katherine Graham, she didn’t ask for permission.