Something I’ve wondered in touring old houses- those of famous people and otherwise- but you rarely hear anything other than “it was the custom in those days” for wealthy couples, or couples who could afford it anyway, to have separate bedrooms. (Working class couples were usually doing good to have a private bedroom to themselves and not have to share a bed and a room with several kids.) Does anybody know if there was a practical reason for this like there was in other “they did it that way” matters (such as kitchens being detached because of fire hazards or high ceilings because of heat and the like)?
That’s the question above, but some random assorted about various sleeping arrangements:
For Abraham and Mary Lincoln it was, at least in part, birth control. Mary had a very difficult time with all of her births but particularly the last one and couldn’t risk unplanned pregnancy- some biographers think she and Abe probably never had sex after Tad was born.
OTOH Robert E. Lee and his wife had the same bedroom even though Arlington was enormous and his wife had a very good reason not to share his bed (she had severe arthritis and major back pain). Andrew and Rachel Jackson also shared a room in spite of ample money and space (though they began their married lives in a one room cabin so it was probably habit).
Some presidents did and some didn’t have separate rooms from their wives while living in the White House. FDR & Eleanor had separate rooms at the White House and at Hyde Park even though the family quarters were famously cramped due to all the kids and grandkids and friends who visited them frequently. I know that the Grants did share a room (they were one of the happier First couples in history) and the Clevelands- who were newlyweds- did not.
Another strange thing is that I’ve toured old homes where the parents slept in separate bedrooms but then four of their kids might share the same bedroom.
My great grandparents, who were neither rich nor poor farmers in Alabama, had separate bedrooms but they also had 15 children together. (To quote my grandfather, “there was a helluva lotta traffic at night”.) In this case my grandmother usually slept with whatever the youngest baby or two and would visit my grandfather if she was in the mood after they were asleep on her bed.
Does there have to be a reason other than the obvious one that it’s more comfortable to sleep in a bed alone than share it with someone? If you’re not sharing a bedroom, you don’t have to worry about the other person hogging the covers, or snoring, or farting in their sleep, or wanting the lights on to read when you want to sleep or wanting the lights off to sleep when you want to read?
I second this. Because of various social and economic factors, marrying someone you loved, and working on that love for the duration of the marriage, was not the primary goal in life.
Even if he snored like a bear and I had back spasms, I could never sleep away from my husband. It would be the most depressing thing in the world.
As a kid I always wondered why Ricky and Lucy had 2 beds on I Love Lucy, then I eventually figured it out. They also were not allowed to say the word pregnant on the show when Lucy was pregnant.
Just a guess, but could it be because of the prevalence of servants back then? If male and female servants helped their masters dress and served them breakfast, and arranged their toilet in the old sense, it somehow scandalous to have a maid see the man get dressed and the butler see the woman get dressed.
Different bed times and rising times might be a reason also.
Did they really sleep in them? My grandparents had separate rooms. Grandmother’s had a sewing machine and a make-up table she would get ready at and grandpa’s had a desk, a TV on top of the dresser and a shotgun hanging on the wall.
All their belongings and clothes were in their own separate room but they slept together in grandpa’s room and split up to get ready or to do their own things in their own room (sewing, working at the desk, etc). As far as sleep went, grandma’s bed was really for guests.
That’s a good theory, especially in really wealthy households.
That’s surprising. My own parents didn’t have what most would describe as a happy marriage and after my siblings left for college they had extra beds most of the time, but the only times they slept in separate beds under the same roof was when one or the other was sick. Same with my aunt and her husband and other not-particularly-happy couples I knew.
Both sets of my grandparents slept in separate beds. My paternal set slept in separate rooms in because they had different sleep habits and because they couldn’t stand each other while my maternal grandparents slept in separate beds in the same room largely because my grandfather’s many years being gone 5 or 6nights per week working for the railroad had made my grandmother very used to sleeping alone (plus, I later learned, she didn’t like sex). I wonder if the main reason for separate beds today is more related to sleeping habits or to relationship problems.
Beds in wealthier homes in the 19th century were significantly shorter than today due to the habit of sleeping propped up on pillows. I wonder if that made sharing a bed more uncomfortable.
Wealthy people had feather mattresses (though then as now I’m sure many were allergic and couldn’t sleep on them) while not as wealthy homes had mattresses stuffed with everything from straw to corn husks to moss, then spread over tightened rope lattice work (“sleep tight”). Having never slept on one of these myself I wonder if you feel the other party’s movements more than on a modern mattress.
Could it have been the unstated social expectation that the man would have a mistress, and that the wife just knew not to go into his room when the door was closed?
The really odd thing was that until Little Ricky was born the network was just fine with the Ricardos sleeping on 2 twin mattresses pushed together on a queen bed frame as long has the beds were made with twin bedding and not queen bedding. That was a pretty odd setup.
It may have been fairly common to have a mistress, but would it be considered appropriate to actually have her come to the house he shared with his wife, as opposed to his “going into town” to visit her?
No, that would not have been considered appropriate (well except for royalty). In fact when judicial divorce was legalized in England (1857) men were allowed to seek a divorce for adultery, but not women. A woman would need to prove aggravated adultery; either that her husband had brought his concubine into the family home, or that he was having an affair with one of her female relatives. IIRC this remained the case until the Edwardian Era.
Absolutely! They always are in places where labor is cheap. Even now in developing countries people we would call decidedly middle class have servants. Wouldn’t you, if you could afford it?
Seriously, I’d have a separate bedroom if I could. I love my boyfriend but the cold wind from his CPAP drives me up a wall. Plus he gets mad when I fidget.
They also were not allowed to say the word pregnant on the show when Lucy was pregnant.