This research was largely funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of a project entitled ‘Women investors in England and Wales, 1870–1930’, award no. RES-000–23-1435. We are grateful for this support and thank our co-investigators (Josephine Maltby and Janette Rutterford) and research assistants (Claire Swan, Carry van Lieshout, Steven Ainscough, and Carien van Mourik) for their help and comments. Eoin Dunne, Alison Kay, Shatish Kundaiker, and Marian Nicolson also provided assistance. We have benefited from advice by William D. Rubinstein and Michael Thompson, while the thoughtful comments of the journal's editors and referees have helped improve the article.
Geographies of wealth: real estate and personal property ownership in England and Wales, 1870–1902†
Article first published online: 4 JAN 2013
© Economic History Society 2013
The Economic History Review
Volume 66, Issue 3, pages 848–872, August 2013
How to Cite
Green, D. r. and Owens, A. (2013), Geographies of wealth: real estate and personal property ownership in England and Wales, 1870–1902. The Economic History Review, 66: 848–872. doi: 10.1111/1468-0289.12001
- Issue published online: 1 JUL 2013
- Article first published online: 4 JAN 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 21 SEP 2012
- Manuscript Revised: 5 SEP 2012
- Manuscript Received: 27 AUG 2011
- Economic and Social Research Council. Grant Number: RES-000–23-1435
This article explores the composition and geographies of individual wealth holding in England and Wales in the late nineteenth century. It draws on various forms of death duty records to determine the individual ownership of wealth including both personal property and real estate. By combining information on these different kinds of property, it is possible to explore how different strata of wealth holders accumulated specific forms of wealth at the time of their death. The article then examines how the composition of that wealth varied according to the wealth holder's location in the urban hierarchy and distance from London. It points out important geographical differences in both the scale and nature of wealth holding and raises questions about the implications of these findings.