Before women could legally open their own bank accounts, financial independence was fragile—and often impossible. Across different countries, the timeline varied. In the United States, married women couldn’t open a bank account in their own name without their husband’s permission until the 1960s and early 1970s. In the UK, the Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870 and 1882 gave married women some property rights, but access to everyday banking remained limited well into the 20th century. In France, married women needed their husband’s consent for most financial matters until reforms in the 1960s. In Japan, women’s legal financial autonomy was similarly restricted until the mid-20th century.
In this context, expensive jewelry became more than decoration—it was one of the few assets a woman could control independently. Rings, brooches, necklaces, and bracelets were portable, tangible wealth. If a husband died, disappeared, or abandoned the family, jewelry could be pawned or sold for immediate cash. Dowries, wedding gifts, and inherited pieces were often chosen with durability and resale value in mind, not just beauty.
This wasn’t a romanticized strategy. It was practical: jewelry quietly filled the financial gaps left by a system that restricted women’s access to savings, credit, and legal protections. Historical accounts show widows and abandoned wives across countries relying on jewelry to survive. Owning something of intrinsic value gave women a measure of autonomy, a fallback in a world that often denied them economic options.
So yes—while women may not have consciously “preferred” jewelry, in an era when banks weren’t available to them, it naturally became a financial safeguard.