If they got married for proprietys sake how could she just return east while they are still married. Eventually one of them would want to re-marry and they would be breaking the law, wouldn't they? I only mention this because it seems kind of a glaring plot hole, that's all.
shareYou're right and I never thought of that. I suppose their marriage could have been similar to the Scottish tradition of "hand-fasting" where you married your spouse for "A year and a day" after which you could decide to stay married or dissolve the marriage without going through annulment or divorce proceedings.
I'm assuming it could be annulled since there was not to be any intimacy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Let's not ask for the moon, we have the stars".
Years ago when I read this book I too wondered the same thing. At the same time I was reading a book about women on wagon trains. The book was a bunch of diaries put together. A number of women had married for convenience. Meaning like a widow married a man to help raise her kids and provide for them. The diaries mentioned no "wedding night". So the diaries did follow a similar format as the Love Comes Softy books & movie.
As I read the diaries of these women being intimate with their new husband was the last thing on their minds. Even once they settled on their land life was too busy for that. It was a common theme. A few women did mention going back home and leaving when spring comes.
A few women head back east and basically since there was no wedding night the marriage was not viewed as a real marriage.
Also keep in mind back then divorce was not an option. It didn't happen. Some women stuck it out and gave their husbands more kids because of that being their duty as the book said. That troubled me but that was the time. As harsh as it sounds the kids were free labor basically.
I wish I could remember the name of the book. It's been over 15yrs since I read but all I remember is what was in the book not the title or author.