Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
JTC
Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
I thought perhaps that people might be interested in material from the
following article/book:
"That such relationships were meaningful is attested to by the
regularity of bequests to godchildren, to sons- and daughters in law
(the seventeenth century's dual expression for stepsons and daughters
as well as for children's spouses), to nephews, nieces, and
cousins."
"... conclusions that do not rest on full prosopography seem
suspect."
From-
"The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century Essays on Anglo-American
Society," Chapel Hill: Univ. of NC Press, 1979, pp. 169 & 177, which
contains "'Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law': Parental Death in a
Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," by Darrett B. and Anita H.
Rutman (the article deals with Middlesex and Lancaster counties, VA);
the Rutmans also support the term "now-wife" as meaning that a man
had a previous wife.
I'm not looking for a response, I'm just quoting material from a
textbook dealing with the precise area and time that sparked many
threads. There is a growing body of literature about colonial women
that should be required reading (I'm thinking here of Sturtz and
Salmon).
JTC 5/11/06
following article/book:
"That such relationships were meaningful is attested to by the
regularity of bequests to godchildren, to sons- and daughters in law
(the seventeenth century's dual expression for stepsons and daughters
as well as for children's spouses), to nephews, nieces, and
cousins."
"... conclusions that do not rest on full prosopography seem
suspect."
From-
"The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century Essays on Anglo-American
Society," Chapel Hill: Univ. of NC Press, 1979, pp. 169 & 177, which
contains "'Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law': Parental Death in a
Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," by Darrett B. and Anita H.
Rutman (the article deals with Middlesex and Lancaster counties, VA);
the Rutmans also support the term "now-wife" as meaning that a man
had a previous wife.
I'm not looking for a response, I'm just quoting material from a
textbook dealing with the precise area and time that sparked many
threads. There is a growing body of literature about colonial women
that should be required reading (I'm thinking here of Sturtz and
Salmon).
JTC 5/11/06
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
JTC quoted:
<snip>
This is the standard comment on the use of 'in-law' in the seventeenth
century.
There is no doubt that in-law and step were confused (the OED gives
examples). However, I must confess that in my reading of thousands of such
wills (nearly all the northwest of England) I can't remember ever seeing son
or daughter in law used as stepson or stepdaughter - such usage must have
been rare in the northwest. Nor have I ever managed to persuade anyone to
provide any significant numbers of examples of such use elsewhere.
Quite often the argument seems to be that such usage is very common in 19th
century censuses, therefore it must be common in seventeenth century wills -
which is, of course, a nonsense!
The OED gives the earliest example of son-in-law as son-in-law as1375 but as
stepson not until 1618; and daughter-in-law as daughter-in-law in 1382 and
as stepdaughter in 1580. It seems clear that this obsolete usage appeared
much later than the modern usage, and might not have spread widely by 1700.
There's never been any doubt that 'now wife' can imply a previous wife - the
only issue at doubt is whether it |always| implies a previous wife. Some
argue that it is a necessary legal term in certain circumstances, hence no
implication.
[As it happens, on the day that the non wife discussion first appeared here,
I discovered the previous wife that a now wife reference in a late 17th
century will had implied. After a three year search, just goes to show that
one should never give up!]
Chris
<snip>
to sons- and daughters in law
(the seventeenth century's dual expression for stepsons and daughters
as well as for children's spouses)
snip
This is the standard comment on the use of 'in-law' in the seventeenth
century.
There is no doubt that in-law and step were confused (the OED gives
examples). However, I must confess that in my reading of thousands of such
wills (nearly all the northwest of England) I can't remember ever seeing son
or daughter in law used as stepson or stepdaughter - such usage must have
been rare in the northwest. Nor have I ever managed to persuade anyone to
provide any significant numbers of examples of such use elsewhere.
Quite often the argument seems to be that such usage is very common in 19th
century censuses, therefore it must be common in seventeenth century wills -
which is, of course, a nonsense!
The OED gives the earliest example of son-in-law as son-in-law as1375 but as
stepson not until 1618; and daughter-in-law as daughter-in-law in 1382 and
as stepdaughter in 1580. It seems clear that this obsolete usage appeared
much later than the modern usage, and might not have spread widely by 1700.
the Rutmans also support the term "now-wife" as meaning that a man
had a previous wife.
There's never been any doubt that 'now wife' can imply a previous wife - the
only issue at doubt is whether it |always| implies a previous wife. Some
argue that it is a necessary legal term in certain circumstances, hence no
implication.
[As it happens, on the day that the non wife discussion first appeared here,
I discovered the previous wife that a now wife reference in a late 17th
century will had implied. After a three year search, just goes to show that
one should never give up!]
Chris
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
My comments are interspersed below. DR
JTC wrote:
< Thanks, Chris--
< Eugene Stratton also says in "Applied Genealogy" that "now-wife"
< doesn't necessarily mean a man had a previous wife;
Mr. Stratton is correct. And, in the Dale case, there was no previous
wife. Diana Skipwith was Edward Dale's sole wife, as indicated by his
epitaph posted here on the newsgroup more than once. If you missed the
epitaph, I'll be glad to post it again for you.
< In the Dale case, however, other evidence supports the conclusion
that Edward Dale
< did have a previous wife, and that she must have been the mother of
Katherine (Dale)
< Carter.
What evidence is that? Marriage record? Deed? Will? What? I
haven't seen any evidence. So far, I've only seen interpretation, no
evidence.
< As Katherine is not my ancestor, I'm not going to say much about that
< situation, but Diana (Skipwith) Dale was, by the laws of 17th century
< VA (and I have Henings Statutes on CD-Rom) considered "feme covert,"
< and legally unable to execute contracts, write a will, etc. I
suppose
< she could witness a document, but would have had absolutely no reason
< to use her maiden name for that.
This is your assumption. It is not based on the facts. You're also
assuming that Diana Skipwith was in her mid-30's when she married.
That assumption is dubious at best.
< In Dale's will she accepted what is known as a "life-interest" in his
estate, as opposed < to exercising her dower rights. This was a common
arrangement for planters' wives,
< as it gave them more income than they would have had through her
dower, and
< prevented the widow from walking off with full ownership of a third
of the personal
< property, which in 1694 included slaves (the law was changed in 1705
to classify
< slaves as "real estate," partly in reaction to this problem).
As I recall, under the terms of his will, Edward Dale gave the bulk of
his estate to his eldest daughter, Katherine (Dale) Carter, who he
named his executrix. He provided for his other daughters before his
death. As far as his wife, Diana, is concerned, you're assuming that
the only property Edward Dale owned is mentioned in his will. This is
an assumption on your part, which may or may not be true.
< This also shows that Diana Dale either did not bring any real
property into the
< marriage, or allowed her husband to co-opt it (which would have been
stupid, as he
< could have done anything he wanted to with it, including selling it,
without consulting
< her).
In this period, it was customary for a woman to receive money as dower,
as opposed to property. If Diana Skipwith had any property in England
given to her in marriage, it was probably sold off before the family
immigrated to Virginia. Again, your assumption is flawed.
< If she had any real property, she would have sought a "jointure," or
As far as I know, most colonists' wives did not have a "jointure."
They had dower.
<Since that didn't happen, it is very likely she had no such property.
Again, this is a very dubious assumption. You don't know what Diana
Skipwith owned.
< I mention this because the notion she wouldv'e used her maiden name
after marriage
< is extremely unlikely, and lacking her own property, I can't think of
a single reason she < would have.
As I've pointed out previously, Diana Skipwith was not in any sense the
typical colonist's wife. She was the daughter and sister of a baronet.
That put her in a different social class than most women who
immigrated to the New World. Moreover, other instances have been cited
here on the newsgroup of colonial women of gentry background using
their maiden names after marriage, the most recent two examples being
Anne Baynton (as posted by John Brandon) and Jane Eltonhead (as posted
by MichaelAnne Guido). Given her higher station, Diana Skipwith's use
of her maiden name after marriage should surprise no one. Nor, is it a
surprise that her eldest daughter, Katherine (Dale) Carter named a son,
Henry Skipwith Carter, or a daughter, Diana. Such naming practices are
typical for families of this rank.
Edward Dale may have settled other property on his wife for life, with
reversion to their children. It would not be necessary for him to
mention this fact in his will. You make many assumptions, most of
which are dubious.
MichaelAnne Guido has done a lot of work on this family. You should
pay closer attention to her.
DR
JTC wrote:
< Thanks, Chris--
< Eugene Stratton also says in "Applied Genealogy" that "now-wife"
< doesn't necessarily mean a man had a previous wife;
Mr. Stratton is correct. And, in the Dale case, there was no previous
wife. Diana Skipwith was Edward Dale's sole wife, as indicated by his
epitaph posted here on the newsgroup more than once. If you missed the
epitaph, I'll be glad to post it again for you.
< In the Dale case, however, other evidence supports the conclusion
that Edward Dale
< did have a previous wife, and that she must have been the mother of
Katherine (Dale)
< Carter.
What evidence is that? Marriage record? Deed? Will? What? I
haven't seen any evidence. So far, I've only seen interpretation, no
evidence.
< As Katherine is not my ancestor, I'm not going to say much about that
< situation, but Diana (Skipwith) Dale was, by the laws of 17th century
< VA (and I have Henings Statutes on CD-Rom) considered "feme covert,"
< and legally unable to execute contracts, write a will, etc. I
suppose
< she could witness a document, but would have had absolutely no reason
< to use her maiden name for that.
This is your assumption. It is not based on the facts. You're also
assuming that Diana Skipwith was in her mid-30's when she married.
That assumption is dubious at best.
< In Dale's will she accepted what is known as a "life-interest" in his
estate, as opposed < to exercising her dower rights. This was a common
arrangement for planters' wives,
< as it gave them more income than they would have had through her
dower, and
< prevented the widow from walking off with full ownership of a third
of the personal
< property, which in 1694 included slaves (the law was changed in 1705
to classify
< slaves as "real estate," partly in reaction to this problem).
As I recall, under the terms of his will, Edward Dale gave the bulk of
his estate to his eldest daughter, Katherine (Dale) Carter, who he
named his executrix. He provided for his other daughters before his
death. As far as his wife, Diana, is concerned, you're assuming that
the only property Edward Dale owned is mentioned in his will. This is
an assumption on your part, which may or may not be true.
< This also shows that Diana Dale either did not bring any real
property into the
< marriage, or allowed her husband to co-opt it (which would have been
stupid, as he
< could have done anything he wanted to with it, including selling it,
without consulting
< her).
In this period, it was customary for a woman to receive money as dower,
as opposed to property. If Diana Skipwith had any property in England
given to her in marriage, it was probably sold off before the family
immigrated to Virginia. Again, your assumption is flawed.
< If she had any real property, she would have sought a "jointure," or
pre-nuptial agreement.
As far as I know, most colonists' wives did not have a "jointure."
They had dower.
<Since that didn't happen, it is very likely she had no such property.
Again, this is a very dubious assumption. You don't know what Diana
Skipwith owned.
< I mention this because the notion she wouldv'e used her maiden name
after marriage
< is extremely unlikely, and lacking her own property, I can't think of
a single reason she < would have.
As I've pointed out previously, Diana Skipwith was not in any sense the
typical colonist's wife. She was the daughter and sister of a baronet.
That put her in a different social class than most women who
immigrated to the New World. Moreover, other instances have been cited
here on the newsgroup of colonial women of gentry background using
their maiden names after marriage, the most recent two examples being
Anne Baynton (as posted by John Brandon) and Jane Eltonhead (as posted
by MichaelAnne Guido). Given her higher station, Diana Skipwith's use
of her maiden name after marriage should surprise no one. Nor, is it a
surprise that her eldest daughter, Katherine (Dale) Carter named a son,
Henry Skipwith Carter, or a daughter, Diana. Such naming practices are
typical for families of this rank.
It's important to understand that in 1694, when Edward Dale wrote his
will, the law allowed a man to do anything he wanted to with his
estate, provided that he observed his wife's dower rights. If a wife
felt that she was short-changed in the will, she could renounce the
portion of it that applied to her and receive her dower rights instead.
Edward Dale may have settled other property on his wife for life, with
reversion to their children. It would not be necessary for him to
mention this fact in his will. You make many assumptions, most of
which are dubious.
The Rutmans cite only two definitions for the term "son-in-law" as I've
quoted (hence the use of the term "dual"): "step-son" and "spouse of a
child". This article is copiously footnoted with tables, statistics,
etc. and is available for purchase on amazon.com. The authors
generally support Preston Haynie and MichaelAnne Guido, which I'm sure
is a surprise to some.
MichaelAnne Guido has done a lot of work on this family. You should
pay closer attention to her.
JTC
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Dear Jeff ~
I've asked you to provide evidence that Edward Dale had another wife
than Diana Skipwith. However, in your reply, you bobbed, weaved, and
evaded the question. So, I'll ask you again. At your earliest
convenience, please cite the will, deed, court, or marriage record
which proves this earlier marriage.
Thanks!
DR
I've asked you to provide evidence that Edward Dale had another wife
than Diana Skipwith. However, in your reply, you bobbed, weaved, and
evaded the question. So, I'll ask you again. At your earliest
convenience, please cite the will, deed, court, or marriage record
which proves this earlier marriage.
Thanks!
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife [Corrected]
Dear taf ~
Why do you feel it necesssary to attack someone personally when you
have no evidence?
The discussion is about Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith, not me. If you
have evidence to post, please do so.
DR
Why do you feel it necesssary to attack someone personally when you
have no evidence?
The discussion is about Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith, not me. If you
have evidence to post, please do so.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Dear Douglas
Most evidence is subject to interpretation. You are asking for proof,
which is something different altogether. The evidence that you rely on
to "prove" Edward Dale had only one wife [his epitaph, which refers to
that marriage having been made "early"] is also open to interpretation,
as previous posts on this tedious, tedious subject have shown; you
yourself admit as much above when you refer to the epitaph "indicating"
rather than proving the 'one marriage' position. As anyone who has
ploughed through these posts will now, 'two marriage' position is a
plausible theory, based on evidence such as Diana signing with her
maiden name at a late date. Unfortunately, pretending that your own
theory has a solidity that none other possesses creates an impression
that double standards are being applied.
Regards, Michael
My comments are interspersed below. DR
JTC wrote:
Thanks, Chris--
Eugene Stratton also says in "Applied Genealogy" that "now-wife"
doesn't necessarily mean a man had a previous wife;
Mr. Stratton is correct. And, in the Dale case, there was no previous
wife. Diana Skipwith was Edward Dale's sole wife, as indicated by his
epitaph posted here on the newsgroup more than once. If you missed the
epitaph, I'll be glad to post it again for you.
In the Dale case, however, other evidence supports the conclusion
that Edward Dale
did have a previous wife, and that she must have been the mother of
Katherine (Dale)
Carter.
What evidence is that? Marriage record? Deed? Will? What? I
haven't seen any evidence. So far, I've only seen interpretation, no
evidence.
Dear Douglas
Most evidence is subject to interpretation. You are asking for proof,
which is something different altogether. The evidence that you rely on
to "prove" Edward Dale had only one wife [his epitaph, which refers to
that marriage having been made "early"] is also open to interpretation,
as previous posts on this tedious, tedious subject have shown; you
yourself admit as much above when you refer to the epitaph "indicating"
rather than proving the 'one marriage' position. As anyone who has
ploughed through these posts will now, 'two marriage' position is a
plausible theory, based on evidence such as Diana signing with her
maiden name at a late date. Unfortunately, pretending that your own
theory has a solidity that none other possesses creates an impression
that double standards are being applied.
Regards, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife [Corrected]
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
The epitaph indicated nothing of the sort.
This is your standard reply when you have no evidence.
And this is your standard evasion when you have overreached
the evidence, claiming that it proves something it does not, and
been caught at it - to point your finger at anyone else other than
the person making the unsupported claim: yourself.
taf
Dear taf ~
Why do you feel it necesssary to attack someone personally when you
have no evidence?
The discussion is about Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith, not me. If you
have evidence to post, please do so.
Pot and kettle!!!
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife [Corrected]
Douglas Richardson wrote:
As if to prove my point, you again blame me for something, rather than
defending your unsupportable conclusion. (And of course you removed the
content of my post, this mythical attack, so that those who are not
following the discussion might actually take it at face value that you
are accurately describing the situation, when in fact your behavior is
more along the lines of "Mommy, Billy hit me _back_!" whining.)
My original post was about the misinterpretation of data.
(Specifically, it said, in response to your misrepresentation, "The
epitaph indicated nothing of the sort." That is it - no attack. You
then made it personal. Let me remind you, as your memory seems not to
be up to the task (and this is giving you the benefit of the doubt - I
actually don't think the problem is with memory, but with honesty). In
response to my comment stating that the epitaph in question does not
support the stated conclusion, you replied:
The subject of that sentence is not the epitaph, nor is it your
conclusions. _You_ are the one who diverted from genealogy to discuss
behavior. In this context, your complaint is extremely hypocritical.
I have said it twice, and you have ignored it twice. You stated a
conclusion that is not supported by the data: there is nothing in the
epitaph that indicates Dale only married once. Here are a couple of
free clues: 1. "early" when looking back from the end of life need not
mean the same as it would to a distant observer - such terms as early,
young, etc. are relative, not absolute. 2. some people marry early, are
widowed early, and remarry early - that a man married the woman who
would be his widow "early" (even if it really means early) need not
exclude multiple marriages. If you want to discuss genealogy, it is
real simple. Defend your conclusion. Show the part of the epitaph that
indicates Dale only married once. If can't support you statement,
please don't whine when your bluff gets called.
taf
Dear taf ~
Why do you feel it necesssary to attack someone personally when you
have no evidence?
As if to prove my point, you again blame me for something, rather than
defending your unsupportable conclusion. (And of course you removed the
content of my post, this mythical attack, so that those who are not
following the discussion might actually take it at face value that you
are accurately describing the situation, when in fact your behavior is
more along the lines of "Mommy, Billy hit me _back_!" whining.)
The discussion is about Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith, not me. If you
have evidence to post, please do so.
My original post was about the misinterpretation of data.
(Specifically, it said, in response to your misrepresentation, "The
epitaph indicated nothing of the sort." That is it - no attack. You
then made it personal. Let me remind you, as your memory seems not to
be up to the task (and this is giving you the benefit of the doubt - I
actually don't think the problem is with memory, but with honesty). In
response to my comment stating that the epitaph in question does not
support the stated conclusion, you replied:
This is your standard reply when you have no evidence.
The subject of that sentence is not the epitaph, nor is it your
conclusions. _You_ are the one who diverted from genealogy to discuss
behavior. In this context, your complaint is extremely hypocritical.
I have said it twice, and you have ignored it twice. You stated a
conclusion that is not supported by the data: there is nothing in the
epitaph that indicates Dale only married once. Here are a couple of
free clues: 1. "early" when looking back from the end of life need not
mean the same as it would to a distant observer - such terms as early,
young, etc. are relative, not absolute. 2. some people marry early, are
widowed early, and remarry early - that a man married the woman who
would be his widow "early" (even if it really means early) need not
exclude multiple marriages. If you want to discuss genealogy, it is
real simple. Defend your conclusion. Show the part of the epitaph that
indicates Dale only married once. If can't support you statement,
please don't whine when your bluff gets called.
taf
-
JTC
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Well Douglas, the fact that Diana Skipwith and Edward Dale were not a
married couple in 1655 is proof that Diana was not Katherine's mother.
I'm not evading the question. Doesn't it bother you that she only used
her maiden name in 1655 and never used it again for the next 40 years
until she died? This notion that she could use her maiden name after
marriage is very convenient if you posit her as Katherine Carter's
mother.
Not every family has a genealogy written by Donald Lines Jacobus.
Sometimes with these old families things that were accepted for a great
many years must be discarded in the light of current research. With
Diana Skipwith we have a romantic myth that this woman of gentle birth
fled Cromwell's England and married, beneath her station, a dashing
royalist officer, and behaved unlike other 17th century VA women
because of her high status, etc.
In RD600 2006 Roberts gives the Katherine Carter line, but notes that
her maternity is "disputed." In your PA3 and MCA you give no such
caveat. This "epitaph" is proof of nothing. You are ignoring the
indisputable fact that when Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale, she
ceased to exist as an independent person. I have cited four books
which deal with situations like this in detail. The notion that she
used her maiden name after marriage is based in turn upon the notion
that she could do this when she was engaged in some legal situation
apart from her husband. This is nonsense. When she married Dale and
did not secure a pre-nuptial agreement, she had no such business!
Colonial VA law clearly intended that a woman's dower rights be her
ultimate defense against a rapacious or insolvent husband. To give an
example: If a man made a will, and in it gave his wife a
"life-interest" in his estate, and after his demise it became clear
that his estate couldn't cover his debts, the wife could reject the
will and re-claim her dower, and the creditors couldn't touch her.
This shows how seriously these dower rights were taken. These women
could "break" a will, at least to the extent that they could walk off
with a third of the personalty, and this is precisely what 17th century
gentry planters like Dale wanted to avoid.
I think you just "adjusted" a projected marriage date for Dale and
Skipwith based upon your acceptance of Katherine Carter as Diana Dale's
daughter, which is in turn based upon a misunderstanding of the world
of 17th century VA women, regardless of their social rank (which
shouldn't be confused with legal status).
JTC
married couple in 1655 is proof that Diana was not Katherine's mother.
I'm not evading the question. Doesn't it bother you that she only used
her maiden name in 1655 and never used it again for the next 40 years
until she died? This notion that she could use her maiden name after
marriage is very convenient if you posit her as Katherine Carter's
mother.
Not every family has a genealogy written by Donald Lines Jacobus.
Sometimes with these old families things that were accepted for a great
many years must be discarded in the light of current research. With
Diana Skipwith we have a romantic myth that this woman of gentle birth
fled Cromwell's England and married, beneath her station, a dashing
royalist officer, and behaved unlike other 17th century VA women
because of her high status, etc.
In RD600 2006 Roberts gives the Katherine Carter line, but notes that
her maternity is "disputed." In your PA3 and MCA you give no such
caveat. This "epitaph" is proof of nothing. You are ignoring the
indisputable fact that when Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale, she
ceased to exist as an independent person. I have cited four books
which deal with situations like this in detail. The notion that she
used her maiden name after marriage is based in turn upon the notion
that she could do this when she was engaged in some legal situation
apart from her husband. This is nonsense. When she married Dale and
did not secure a pre-nuptial agreement, she had no such business!
Colonial VA law clearly intended that a woman's dower rights be her
ultimate defense against a rapacious or insolvent husband. To give an
example: If a man made a will, and in it gave his wife a
"life-interest" in his estate, and after his demise it became clear
that his estate couldn't cover his debts, the wife could reject the
will and re-claim her dower, and the creditors couldn't touch her.
This shows how seriously these dower rights were taken. These women
could "break" a will, at least to the extent that they could walk off
with a third of the personalty, and this is precisely what 17th century
gentry planters like Dale wanted to avoid.
I think you just "adjusted" a projected marriage date for Dale and
Skipwith based upon your acceptance of Katherine Carter as Diana Dale's
daughter, which is in turn based upon a misunderstanding of the world
of 17th century VA women, regardless of their social rank (which
shouldn't be confused with legal status).
JTC
-
John Brandon
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
I've been trying to make sense of the following references concerning
my ancestor John Gifford in Massachusetts Bay:
Edward N. Hartley, _Ironworks on the Saugus_, pp. 289-90: "By the
winter of 1665-1666 that gentleman [Capt. Breedon] sued him [John
Gifford], presumably for debt, and was awarded the quite substantial
verdict of L1050. Gifford tried to put his land into the name of his
wife and daughter but was unsuccessful. It went to Breedon. So, one
must infer, did whatever interest Gifford held in the 'new Iron works
at Lin.'"
p. 292: "The clouds in Gifford's title that went back to his attempt
to sign things over to his wife and daughter had been cleared to the
satisfaction of the highest officials in the colony. All looked
promising in the extreme."
If he was unable to transfer the property to his wife, why were there
'clouds in the title'?
At one point in the _Essex Quarterly Court Records_, it specifically
states that some land adjacent to the ironworks was "owned by Mrs.
Gifford." Her husband was still very much alive at this time.
Was she "femme covert"?
my ancestor John Gifford in Massachusetts Bay:
Edward N. Hartley, _Ironworks on the Saugus_, pp. 289-90: "By the
winter of 1665-1666 that gentleman [Capt. Breedon] sued him [John
Gifford], presumably for debt, and was awarded the quite substantial
verdict of L1050. Gifford tried to put his land into the name of his
wife and daughter but was unsuccessful. It went to Breedon. So, one
must infer, did whatever interest Gifford held in the 'new Iron works
at Lin.'"
p. 292: "The clouds in Gifford's title that went back to his attempt
to sign things over to his wife and daughter had been cleared to the
satisfaction of the highest officials in the colony. All looked
promising in the extreme."
If he was unable to transfer the property to his wife, why were there
'clouds in the title'?
At one point in the _Essex Quarterly Court Records_, it specifically
states that some land adjacent to the ironworks was "owned by Mrs.
Gifford." Her husband was still very much alive at this time.
Was she "femme covert"?
-
John Brandon
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
_EQC_, 5:398: "Writ, dated Lynn, Sept. 17, 1674, signed by John
Fuller, for the court, and served by Nathaniell Ballord, constable of
Lyn, by attachment of the dwelling house of Mr. John Jeffard and upon
the land adjoining, which Mrs. Gifford owned, and which he said was in
partnership between Mr. Fogg and themselves."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/wit ... ex398.html
Fuller, for the court, and served by Nathaniell Ballord, constable of
Lyn, by attachment of the dwelling house of Mr. John Jeffard and upon
the land adjoining, which Mrs. Gifford owned, and which he said was in
partnership between Mr. Fogg and themselves."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/wit ... ex398.html
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
JTC wrote:
< I'm not evading the question.
Yes, you are. I asked for wills, deeds, court records, marriage
records, anything to prove your assertion that Edward Dale had a
previous wife. All you've done is whine.
Better that you should have simply said, "I have no evidence."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
< I'm not evading the question.
Yes, you are. I asked for wills, deeds, court records, marriage
records, anything to prove your assertion that Edward Dale had a
previous wife. All you've done is whine.
Better that you should have simply said, "I have no evidence."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas Richardson wrote:
The reasons for supposing why Edward Dale had a previous wife have been
rehearsed in this thread twice at least now, and elsewhere to the point
of nausea. Anyone reading these posts can see this. Why do you risk
making yourself look foolish by repeating such nonsensical assertions?
This from the person who complained earlier today about ad hominem
attacks??? Douglas, you can do better than that.
Ahem, the evidence has been cited; clearly you do not agree with it,
which is your prerogative, but by pretending that it doesn't exist or
hasn't been aired, you just lower your own standing, which is
regrettable.
Given that the troublesome Edward Dale seems to bring out the worst in
several posters, perhaps he should become a proscribed topic on this
group?
JTC wrote:
I'm not evading the question.
Yes, you are. I asked for wills, deeds, court records, marriage
records, anything to prove your assertion that Edward Dale had a
previous wife.
The reasons for supposing why Edward Dale had a previous wife have been
rehearsed in this thread twice at least now, and elsewhere to the point
of nausea. Anyone reading these posts can see this. Why do you risk
making yourself look foolish by repeating such nonsensical assertions?
All you've done is whine.
This from the person who complained earlier today about ad hominem
attacks??? Douglas, you can do better than that.
Better that you should have simply said, "I have no evidence."
Ahem, the evidence has been cited; clearly you do not agree with it,
which is your prerogative, but by pretending that it doesn't exist or
hasn't been aired, you just lower your own standing, which is
regrettable.
Given that the troublesome Edward Dale seems to bring out the worst in
several posters, perhaps he should become a proscribed topic on this
group?
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
< Given that the troublesome Edward Dale seems to bring out the worst
in
< several posters, perhaps he should become a proscribed topic on this
< group?
It's cases like this that demonstrate the need to closely examine ALL
the evidence, not just selective parts.
DR
< Given that the troublesome Edward Dale seems to bring out the worst
in
< several posters, perhaps he should become a proscribed topic on this
< group?
It's cases like this that demonstrate the need to closely examine ALL
the evidence, not just selective parts.
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
-
John Brandon
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
I suppose this could be read to mean that Mrs. Gifford owned both the
dwelling house and land adjoining ...
John Brandon wrote:
dwelling house and land adjoining ...
John Brandon wrote:
_EQC_, 5:398: "Writ, dated Lynn, Sept. 17, 1674, signed by John
Fuller, for the court, and served by Nathaniell Ballord, constable of
Lyn, by attachment of the dwelling house of Mr. John Jeffard and upon
the land adjoining, which Mrs. Gifford owned, and which he said was in
partnership between Mr. Fogg and themselves."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/wit ... ex398.html
-
JTC
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
I know these Skipwith threads must seem interminable, but the Katherine
Carter question has to be confronted since Douglas has endorsed the
line in his books, and many are going to get their (erroneous)
information from him.
I did locate the "Jane Eltonhead" reference, and again, this is a case
involving a widow. Widows were considered "femes soles" and enjoyed
their civil rights. Diana (Skipwith) Dale was under coverture, which
meant that apart from relinquishing her dower as required by law as
part of a conveyance, she basically had no civil rights. It's
extremely unlikely she owned any "real property," as in the normal
course of things she would have arranged a pre-nuptial agreement to
protect her rights as other propertied women did. This did not happen.
It may surprise people to learn that if she did not arrange a pre-nup,
when her husband died she wasn't entitled to her own property and he
could devise it to anybody. The laws governing wills were based upon a
statute passed in the reign of Henry VIII which abolished primogeniture
as a requirement and permitted a man to devise his property to anybody
he please to bless with it. Edward Dale's children had absolutely no
claim on his estate if he died testate.
I challenge anyone to produce a record in which a "feme covert" in 17th
century VA used her maiden name during her marriage.
Social rank and legal status are two different things. Skipwith might
have been the belle of the ball, but when it came to her legal
position, she basically didn't have one. Men more powerful and
wealthier than Edward Dale treated their wives like crap. It was just
the way things were done then.
Women's "dower rights" were their leverage in dealing with their
husbands. The law fully supported women in this if nothing else.
Women could and did thwart their husband's designs for his property, as
Mrs. Hannah Ball, a friend of the Dales, did when she started giving
her husband's property to various family members not sanctioned in his
will (see Brown pg. 288).
This is a case of being in "denial." What explanation is there for
Skipwith using her maiden name on a couple of ordinary deeds in 1655,
and never using it again for the next 40 years? Does anybody know?
As David Greene stated in his letter to me dated 27 March 2000 about
the notorious epitaph, [Carter] "was establishing Dale's high social
rank."
Carter question has to be confronted since Douglas has endorsed the
line in his books, and many are going to get their (erroneous)
information from him.
I did locate the "Jane Eltonhead" reference, and again, this is a case
involving a widow. Widows were considered "femes soles" and enjoyed
their civil rights. Diana (Skipwith) Dale was under coverture, which
meant that apart from relinquishing her dower as required by law as
part of a conveyance, she basically had no civil rights. It's
extremely unlikely she owned any "real property," as in the normal
course of things she would have arranged a pre-nuptial agreement to
protect her rights as other propertied women did. This did not happen.
It may surprise people to learn that if she did not arrange a pre-nup,
when her husband died she wasn't entitled to her own property and he
could devise it to anybody. The laws governing wills were based upon a
statute passed in the reign of Henry VIII which abolished primogeniture
as a requirement and permitted a man to devise his property to anybody
he please to bless with it. Edward Dale's children had absolutely no
claim on his estate if he died testate.
I challenge anyone to produce a record in which a "feme covert" in 17th
century VA used her maiden name during her marriage.
Social rank and legal status are two different things. Skipwith might
have been the belle of the ball, but when it came to her legal
position, she basically didn't have one. Men more powerful and
wealthier than Edward Dale treated their wives like crap. It was just
the way things were done then.
Women's "dower rights" were their leverage in dealing with their
husbands. The law fully supported women in this if nothing else.
Women could and did thwart their husband's designs for his property, as
Mrs. Hannah Ball, a friend of the Dales, did when she started giving
her husband's property to various family members not sanctioned in his
will (see Brown pg. 288).
This is a case of being in "denial." What explanation is there for
Skipwith using her maiden name on a couple of ordinary deeds in 1655,
and never using it again for the next 40 years? Does anybody know?
As David Greene stated in his letter to me dated 27 March 2000 about
the notorious epitaph, [Carter] "was establishing Dale's high social
rank."
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas Richardson wrote:
He detailed his interpretation of the evidence that has been presented.
That it disagrees with your conclusion is hardly grounds to dismiss it
as 'whining'. Further I don't see how his interpretation is somehow
less worthy because it is only based on the same evidence as yours -
that you are on solid ground drawing a conclusion based on the selective
use of that evidence, while when he does the same he "ha[s] no
evidence." Curious standards those.
If I didn't know you better, I would think you were simply trying to
browbeat into submission someone who disagrees with you; that this is
more about 'winning' than it is about genealogy. But you would never do
that, would you? Didn't somone once say this group was also about
making friends? Maybe you and this 'friendly' poster should discuss
your different approaches. I bet you have a lot in common and could
find some middle ground.
taf
JTC wrote:
I'm not evading the question.
Yes, you are. I asked for wills, deeds, court records, marriage
records, anything to prove your assertion that Edward Dale had a
previous wife. All you've done is whine.
Better that you should have simply said, "I have no evidence."
He detailed his interpretation of the evidence that has been presented.
That it disagrees with your conclusion is hardly grounds to dismiss it
as 'whining'. Further I don't see how his interpretation is somehow
less worthy because it is only based on the same evidence as yours -
that you are on solid ground drawing a conclusion based on the selective
use of that evidence, while when he does the same he "ha[s] no
evidence." Curious standards those.
If I didn't know you better, I would think you were simply trying to
browbeat into submission someone who disagrees with you; that this is
more about 'winning' than it is about genealogy. But you would never do
that, would you? Didn't somone once say this group was also about
making friends? Maybe you and this 'friendly' poster should discuss
your different approaches. I bet you have a lot in common and could
find some middle ground.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Asking someone to produce their evidence is hardly "browbeating" them.
A deed perhaps? A will? A marriage record? Anything?
DR
If I didn't know you better, I would think you were simply trying to
browbeat into submission someone who disagrees with you.
taf
Asking someone to produce their evidence is hardly "browbeating" them.
A deed perhaps? A will? A marriage record? Anything?
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
JTC wrote:
Diana Skipwith's marital status had nothing to do with her using her
maiden name after marriage. She used her maiden name because she was
the daughter and sister of a baronet. A higher social station is the
same reason why Anne Baynton and Jane Eltonhead both employed their
maiden names after marriage. This is very simple.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
I did locate the "Jane Eltonhead" reference, and again, this is a case
involving a widow. Widows were considered "femes soles" and enjoyed
their civil rights. Diana (Skipwith) Dale was under coverture, which
meant that apart from relinquishing her dower as required by law as
part of a conveyance, she basically had no civil rights.
Diana Skipwith's marital status had nothing to do with her using her
maiden name after marriage. She used her maiden name because she was
the daughter and sister of a baronet. A higher social station is the
same reason why Anne Baynton and Jane Eltonhead both employed their
maiden names after marriage. This is very simple.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Gjest
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Unfortunately, it is also a theory (regardless of how compelling it may
be), rather than a proof.
Furthermore, Anne Baynton did not necessarily use her maiden name
because it attracted a higher sense of status, as has been examined
here recently; she may well have used it in the instance cited simply
because it was useful in tying her to the ancestral claim she was
seeking to advance.
Why must this be gone through over and over and over again?
JTC wrote:
I did locate the "Jane Eltonhead" reference, and again, this is a case
involving a widow. Widows were considered "femes soles" and enjoyed
their civil rights. Diana (Skipwith) Dale was under coverture, which
meant that apart from relinquishing her dower as required by law as
part of a conveyance, she basically had no civil rights.
Diana Skipwith's marital status had nothing to do with her using her
maiden name after marriage. She used her maiden name because she was
the daughter and sister of a baronet. A higher social station is the
same reason why Anne Baynton and Jane Eltonhead both employed their
maiden names after marriage. This is very simple.
Unfortunately, it is also a theory (regardless of how compelling it may
be), rather than a proof.
Furthermore, Anne Baynton did not necessarily use her maiden name
because it attracted a higher sense of status, as has been examined
here recently; she may well have used it in the instance cited simply
because it was useful in tying her to the ancestral claim she was
seeking to advance.
Why must this be gone through over and over and over again?
-
JTC
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas--
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. I wanted to share
with the group some in-depth research I did on this topic because I was
not satisfied with some of the answers I was getting in previous
threads. I have cited 4 excellent, commercially available, books which
deal with family matters and principally women's issues mainly in 17th
century VA. When I mentioned Mrs. Hannah Ball, widow of Col. William
Ball, I wasn't just picking her out of a hat. She and the Dales were
friends. How do I know that? Because her son Capt. William Ball stood
at the christening of one of Thomas Carter's children. Kathleen Brown
selected Hannah's tale because it reflected many facets of what we're
discussing, mainly that if a man expected his estate to "continue
together" (a quote from Dale's will) in 1694, he had in the final
analysis to come to some kind of understanding with his wife. It had
nothing to do with an argument with William Rogers or anything else.
The fact that you believe a daughter of a baronet could use her maiden
name after marriage (and Dr. Greene agrees she couldn't, although his
letter doesn't give the legal underpinnings of his opinion, and was
therefore not as valuable as it could have been in understanding this
situation) shows a complete lack of understanding of the legal status
of women in 17th century VA. You won't address the reasons why
Skipwith used her maiden name on a couple of routine conveyances in
1655 and never use it again until her death in 1695. You don't
understand, Douglas--she did not exist as a legal entity apart from her
husband except in cases of dower relinquishment and if he gave her
power of attorney, or she obtained legal "feme sole trader" status (see
Salmon pg. 55). Do you really think that because this woman was the
daughter of a baronet that the law gave her some unique status? Where
did you get that idea? She wasn't the heiress of some peer, you know.
It is simple--Baynton and Eltonhead were both widows. Widows had a
different legal status than married women.
I'm telling you that there is absolutely nothing in these four books
that supports your position. If you don't believe me, get one (the
Brown book is useful) and read it. Failing that, get on the 'net and
do a search on "feme covert;" it is not difficult to get this
information. Don't take my word for it.
According to the revision of law affecting probate matters enacted in
the reign of Henry VIII, a man no longer HAD to observe primogeniture
and was granted the right to do anything he wanted with his estate. Do
not confuse the laws governing intestate matters with that which
governs a will--they are two completely different things. Dale had his
daughter Elizabeth Rogers accept a quit-claim payment of 12 pence. He
did not say "in consideration of what I have already given her." Capt.
William Ball wrote his will a month after Dale did, and also had a
quit-claim in it involving a land swap between four sons. You can find
the Ball will on the Lancaster Co. GenWeb site--have a look at it.
These quit-claims were not formulaic; they were designed to address
specific issues facing the testator. In the Dale case, the testator
didn't even bother to mention Mary Dale's proven son Humphrey Jones Jr.
who was alive and well. As far as Edward Dale's will is concerned,
it's as if they never existed. Had these quit-claims been formulaic,
Dale would have had to secure a waiver from the guardian of Humphrey
Jones Jr. (who at the time appears to have been an ailing Mary Seager)
as indemnity against Humphrey's mother's "share." That was unecessary
because Humphrey's mother didn't have a legal share. And neither did
Elizabeth Rogers.
I'm sorry that we cannot see eye-to-eye. You could be an important
channel to rectify this situation. I like your books, but you're all
wet on this one. I am talking about the legal realities of the
situation as they impacted these specific people in that specific
place. Your romantic notion of the rights of baronet's daughters might
make a good TV movie, but that's all. You are confusing social rank
with standing under the law. My understanding is that the main
qualification to be a baronet was to have a tidy sum to enrich the
coffers of the Stuarts.
BTW, one person told me that Diana Dale was not a stunning beauty, and
that's why she was not married until, at least, the ripe age of 34.
Granted there was social disruption occasioned by the conflict in
Britain, but even so mid-30s does seem very late for a woman to marry,
so perhaps that's the explanation. We don't have a portrait of her, so
who knows?
JTC
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. I wanted to share
with the group some in-depth research I did on this topic because I was
not satisfied with some of the answers I was getting in previous
threads. I have cited 4 excellent, commercially available, books which
deal with family matters and principally women's issues mainly in 17th
century VA. When I mentioned Mrs. Hannah Ball, widow of Col. William
Ball, I wasn't just picking her out of a hat. She and the Dales were
friends. How do I know that? Because her son Capt. William Ball stood
at the christening of one of Thomas Carter's children. Kathleen Brown
selected Hannah's tale because it reflected many facets of what we're
discussing, mainly that if a man expected his estate to "continue
together" (a quote from Dale's will) in 1694, he had in the final
analysis to come to some kind of understanding with his wife. It had
nothing to do with an argument with William Rogers or anything else.
The fact that you believe a daughter of a baronet could use her maiden
name after marriage (and Dr. Greene agrees she couldn't, although his
letter doesn't give the legal underpinnings of his opinion, and was
therefore not as valuable as it could have been in understanding this
situation) shows a complete lack of understanding of the legal status
of women in 17th century VA. You won't address the reasons why
Skipwith used her maiden name on a couple of routine conveyances in
1655 and never use it again until her death in 1695. You don't
understand, Douglas--she did not exist as a legal entity apart from her
husband except in cases of dower relinquishment and if he gave her
power of attorney, or she obtained legal "feme sole trader" status (see
Salmon pg. 55). Do you really think that because this woman was the
daughter of a baronet that the law gave her some unique status? Where
did you get that idea? She wasn't the heiress of some peer, you know.
It is simple--Baynton and Eltonhead were both widows. Widows had a
different legal status than married women.
I'm telling you that there is absolutely nothing in these four books
that supports your position. If you don't believe me, get one (the
Brown book is useful) and read it. Failing that, get on the 'net and
do a search on "feme covert;" it is not difficult to get this
information. Don't take my word for it.
According to the revision of law affecting probate matters enacted in
the reign of Henry VIII, a man no longer HAD to observe primogeniture
and was granted the right to do anything he wanted with his estate. Do
not confuse the laws governing intestate matters with that which
governs a will--they are two completely different things. Dale had his
daughter Elizabeth Rogers accept a quit-claim payment of 12 pence. He
did not say "in consideration of what I have already given her." Capt.
William Ball wrote his will a month after Dale did, and also had a
quit-claim in it involving a land swap between four sons. You can find
the Ball will on the Lancaster Co. GenWeb site--have a look at it.
These quit-claims were not formulaic; they were designed to address
specific issues facing the testator. In the Dale case, the testator
didn't even bother to mention Mary Dale's proven son Humphrey Jones Jr.
who was alive and well. As far as Edward Dale's will is concerned,
it's as if they never existed. Had these quit-claims been formulaic,
Dale would have had to secure a waiver from the guardian of Humphrey
Jones Jr. (who at the time appears to have been an ailing Mary Seager)
as indemnity against Humphrey's mother's "share." That was unecessary
because Humphrey's mother didn't have a legal share. And neither did
Elizabeth Rogers.
I'm sorry that we cannot see eye-to-eye. You could be an important
channel to rectify this situation. I like your books, but you're all
wet on this one. I am talking about the legal realities of the
situation as they impacted these specific people in that specific
place. Your romantic notion of the rights of baronet's daughters might
make a good TV movie, but that's all. You are confusing social rank
with standing under the law. My understanding is that the main
qualification to be a baronet was to have a tidy sum to enrich the
coffers of the Stuarts.
BTW, one person told me that Diana Dale was not a stunning beauty, and
that's why she was not married until, at least, the ripe age of 34.
Granted there was social disruption occasioned by the conflict in
Britain, but even so mid-30s does seem very late for a woman to marry,
so perhaps that's the explanation. We don't have a portrait of her, so
who knows?
JTC
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
JTC wrote:
Another explanation is that she had a previous husband, and
a child named .... you know what!
Your attempt to base the finding on only ONE piece of
evidence ... that she used her maiden name ... is bogus. You
try over and over and over to say this. It simply does not
work. We know for a fact that basing claims on one single
clue often fails. You are in this situation. And use of
a maiden name is just that ... a CLUE. It is not a major
fact, like finding her previously using a different married
name, or finding Dale using the term "my former wife".
Of course, this goes both ways, and Richardson is fixating
on an equivalent "clue".
Neither of you is going to get anywhere.
Doug McDonald
BTW, one person told me that Diana Dale was not a stunning beauty, and
that's why she was not married until, at least, the ripe age of 34.
Granted there was social disruption occasioned by the conflict in
Britain, but even so mid-30s does seem very late for a woman to marry,
so perhaps that's the explanation. We don't have a portrait of her, so
who knows?
JTC
Another explanation is that she had a previous husband, and
a child named .... you know what!
Your attempt to base the finding on only ONE piece of
evidence ... that she used her maiden name ... is bogus. You
try over and over and over to say this. It simply does not
work. We know for a fact that basing claims on one single
clue often fails. You are in this situation. And use of
a maiden name is just that ... a CLUE. It is not a major
fact, like finding her previously using a different married
name, or finding Dale using the term "my former wife".
Of course, this goes both ways, and Richardson is fixating
on an equivalent "clue".
Neither of you is going to get anywhere.
Doug McDonald
-
Austin W. Spencer
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
John Brandon wrote:
Hartley's interpretation seems to be that there were clouds in the
title because . . . John Gifford had tried to transfer the property to
his wife! If John could have accomplished nothing else by this ploy, he
could have at least managed this; whereas, if he had _succeeded_ in
making the grant, then _she_ would have held clear title.
It would seem that Margaret _was_ the sole owner of the house and land
adjoining mentioned in EQC 5:398, in which case she would have held the
property in fee simple and the rule of "feme covert" would not have
applied. But the record does not specify that the house stood that
close to the ironworks. It certainly does not imply that she had any
equivalent right to the ironworks themselves.
Austin W. Spencer
Edward N. Hartley, _Ironworks on the Saugus_, pp. 289-90: "By the
winter of 1665-1666 that gentleman [Capt. Breedon] sued him [John
Gifford], presumably for debt, and was awarded the quite substantial
verdict of L1050. Gifford tried to put his land into the name of his
wife and daughter but was unsuccessful. It went to Breedon. So, one
must infer, did whatever interest Gifford held in the 'new Iron works
at Lin.'"
p. 292: "The clouds in Gifford's title that went back to his attempt
to sign things over to his wife and daughter had been cleared to the
satisfaction of the highest officials in the colony. All looked
promising in the extreme."
If he was unable to transfer the property to his wife, why were there
'clouds in the title'?
Hartley's interpretation seems to be that there were clouds in the
title because . . . John Gifford had tried to transfer the property to
his wife! If John could have accomplished nothing else by this ploy, he
could have at least managed this; whereas, if he had _succeeded_ in
making the grant, then _she_ would have held clear title.
At one point in the _Essex Quarterly Court Records_, it specifically
states that some land adjacent to the ironworks was "owned by Mrs.
Gifford." Her husband was still very much alive at this time.
Was she "femme covert"?
It would seem that Margaret _was_ the sole owner of the house and land
adjoining mentioned in EQC 5:398, in which case she would have held the
property in fee simple and the rule of "feme covert" would not have
applied. But the record does not specify that the house stood that
close to the ironworks. It certainly does not imply that she had any
equivalent right to the ironworks themselves.
Austin W. Spencer
-
John Brandon
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
applied. But the record does not specify that the house stood that
close to the ironworks. It certainly does not imply that she had any
equivalent right to the ironworks themselves.
Hmmm. Well, something was "in partnership between Mr. Fogg and
themselves," and I don't think Ezekiell Fogg would have been very
interested in their house, so it does imply (to me at least) that she
had some sort of interest in the New Ironworks themselves ...
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
JTC wrote:
Yes, I do believe this. But she's not at all.
I descend from an Armstead Blackwell, born say 1745, of Albemarle
County, Virginia and Madison County, Kentucky. The Blackwells were a
slave owning family. Armstead's wife, Dicey, occurs after his death in
Kentucky records, once as Dicey Capman and once as Dicey Chammon.
Capman/Chammon appears to have been her maiden name. She eventually
married (2nd) Thomas Crews, and moved to Missouri. She occurs once in
records as Dicey C. Crews.
Dicey Blackwell is the only colonial woman in my known ancestry who
used her maiden name after marriage. The fact that she was a Virginian
woman is probably significant. I might also note that Armstead
Blackwell's mother, Sarah, is likely a granddaughter of the immigrant,
Joseph Bickley, whose father was a baronet in England. So we're back
to a family with a connection to a baronet. Same class of people, same
use of maiden name after marriage as Diana Skipwith. I'm sure that
this is purely coincidental.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
The fact that you believe a daughter of a baronet could use her maiden
name after marriage ...
Yes, I do believe this. But she's not at all.
I descend from an Armstead Blackwell, born say 1745, of Albemarle
County, Virginia and Madison County, Kentucky. The Blackwells were a
slave owning family. Armstead's wife, Dicey, occurs after his death in
Kentucky records, once as Dicey Capman and once as Dicey Chammon.
Capman/Chammon appears to have been her maiden name. She eventually
married (2nd) Thomas Crews, and moved to Missouri. She occurs once in
records as Dicey C. Crews.
Dicey Blackwell is the only colonial woman in my known ancestry who
used her maiden name after marriage. The fact that she was a Virginian
woman is probably significant. I might also note that Armstead
Blackwell's mother, Sarah, is likely a granddaughter of the immigrant,
Joseph Bickley, whose father was a baronet in England. So we're back
to a family with a connection to a baronet. Same class of people, same
use of maiden name after marriage as Diana Skipwith. I'm sure that
this is purely coincidental.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Gjest
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
So am I. There is a logical fallacy with your adducing this example to
bolster your argument:
Scenario #1:
(a) Diana Skipwith used her maiden name after marriage, her father
being a baronet;
(b) She did this because of the higher social position it connoted.
Scenario #2:
(a) Dicey Chammon/Capman used her [apparent] maiden name after
marriage, her husband's maternal great-grandfather [allegedly] being a
baronet
(b) She did this because of the higher social position it connoted -no,
hang on a minute, if she was after greater social cache, she should
have used her husband's surname, he being the one of noble descent,
unless her apparent Capman/Chammon ancestry was even more
prestigious...
JTC wrote:
The fact that you believe a daughter of a baronet could use her maiden
name after marriage ...
Yes, I do believe this. But she's not at all.
I descend from an Armstead Blackwell, born say 1745, of Albemarle
County, Virginia and Madison County, Kentucky. The Blackwells were a
slave owning family. Armstead's wife, Dicey, occurs after his death in
Kentucky records, once as Dicey Capman and once as Dicey Chammon.
Capman/Chammon appears to have been her maiden name. She eventually
married (2nd) Thomas Crews, and moved to Missouri. She occurs once in
records as Dicey C. Crews.
Dicey Blackwell is the only colonial woman in my known ancestry who
used her maiden name after marriage. The fact that she was a Virginian
woman is probably significant. I might also note that Armstead
Blackwell's mother, Sarah, is likely a granddaughter of the immigrant,
Joseph Bickley, whose father was a baronet in England. So we're back
to a family with a connection to a baronet. Same class of people, same
use of maiden name after marriage as Diana Skipwith. I'm sure that
this is purely coincidental.
So am I. There is a logical fallacy with your adducing this example to
bolster your argument:
Scenario #1:
(a) Diana Skipwith used her maiden name after marriage, her father
being a baronet;
(b) She did this because of the higher social position it connoted.
Scenario #2:
(a) Dicey Chammon/Capman used her [apparent] maiden name after
marriage, her husband's maternal great-grandfather [allegedly] being a
baronet
(b) She did this because of the higher social position it connoted -no,
hang on a minute, if she was after greater social cache, she should
have used her husband's surname, he being the one of noble descent,
unless her apparent Capman/Chammon ancestry was even more
prestigious...
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
prestigious...
The Capmans qualify for the most elitest hereditary group of all - the
Society of non-descendants of Charlemagne. You don't get more
prestigious than that.
DR
.... unless her apparent Capman/Chammon ancestry was even more
prestigious...
The Capmans qualify for the most elitest hereditary group of all - the
Society of non-descendants of Charlemagne. You don't get more
prestigious than that.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Rara avis indeed!
Cheers, Michael
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
.... unless her apparent Capman/Chammon ancestry was even more
prestigious...
The Capmans qualify for the most elitest hereditary group of all - the
Society of non-descendants of Charlemagne. You don't get more
prestigious than that.
DR
Rara avis indeed!
Cheers, Michael
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
In article <1147552171.430876.273540@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Not to mention that the Dicey example is yet another *widow*. Douglas
has consistently ignored all the people pointing out that widows were in
quite a different legal position than women during marriage, so someone
cannot point to the legal habits of widows to explain how Diana could
have used her maiden name while married. Douglas will continue to
ignore this point, and tell us that his catalogue of widows using their
maiden names in specific contexts during widowhood explains away the
problem of Diana Skipwith's 1655 deeds. But I suspect his first choice
would be never to mention the issue of the 1655 deeds in the first place
(just as it is not mentioned in the blurb on Diana Skipwith in PA3).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
JTC wrote:
The fact that you believe a daughter of a baronet could use her maiden
name after marriage ...
Yes, I do believe this. But she's not at all.
I descend from an Armstead Blackwell, born say 1745, of Albemarle
County, Virginia and Madison County, Kentucky. The Blackwells were a
slave owning family. Armstead's wife, Dicey, occurs after his death in
Kentucky records, once as Dicey Capman and once as Dicey Chammon.
Capman/Chammon appears to have been her maiden name. She eventually
married (2nd) Thomas Crews, and moved to Missouri. She occurs once in
records as Dicey C. Crews.
Dicey Blackwell is the only colonial woman in my known ancestry who
used her maiden name after marriage. The fact that she was a Virginian
woman is probably significant. I might also note that Armstead
Blackwell's mother, Sarah, is likely a granddaughter of the immigrant,
Joseph Bickley, whose father was a baronet in England. So we're back
to a family with a connection to a baronet. Same class of people, same
use of maiden name after marriage as Diana Skipwith. I'm sure that
this is purely coincidental.
So am I. There is a logical fallacy with your adducing this example to
bolster your argument:
Scenario #1:
(a) Diana Skipwith used her maiden name after marriage, her father
being a baronet;
(b) She did this because of the higher social position it connoted.
Scenario #2:
(a) Dicey Chammon/Capman used her [apparent] maiden name after
marriage, her husband's maternal great-grandfather [allegedly] being a
baronet
(b) She did this because of the higher social position it connoted -no,
hang on a minute, if she was after greater social cache, she should
have used her husband's surname, he being the one of noble descent,
unless her apparent Capman/Chammon ancestry was even more
prestigious...
Not to mention that the Dicey example is yet another *widow*. Douglas
has consistently ignored all the people pointing out that widows were in
quite a different legal position than women during marriage, so someone
cannot point to the legal habits of widows to explain how Diana could
have used her maiden name while married. Douglas will continue to
ignore this point, and tell us that his catalogue of widows using their
maiden names in specific contexts during widowhood explains away the
problem of Diana Skipwith's 1655 deeds. But I suspect his first choice
would be never to mention the issue of the 1655 deeds in the first place
(just as it is not mentioned in the blurb on Diana Skipwith in PA3).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
-
Douglas Richardson
Dicey Capman/Chammon, wife of Armstead Blackwell and Thomas
In Dicey (Capman/Chammon) Blackwell's case, there are no records of
what name she used when she was married to Armstead Blackwell. So, no
one can say what style she used during her first marriage. Following
Armstead Blackwell's death, she occurs in records as Dicey Capman.
Dicey Chammon, and Dicey Blackwell. After her second marriage to
Thomas Crews, she occur once as Dicey C. Crews.
Thus, it appears that Dicey Capman used her maiden name both as a widow
and during her 2nd marriage. So, the argument of whether Dicey Capman
was married or widowed when she used her maiden name seems to be a
non-issue. I suspect the same is true with Diana Skipwith. And, that
is an important point I think.
DR
what name she used when she was married to Armstead Blackwell. So, no
one can say what style she used during her first marriage. Following
Armstead Blackwell's death, she occurs in records as Dicey Capman.
Dicey Chammon, and Dicey Blackwell. After her second marriage to
Thomas Crews, she occur once as Dicey C. Crews.
Thus, it appears that Dicey Capman used her maiden name both as a widow
and during her 2nd marriage. So, the argument of whether Dicey Capman
was married or widowed when she used her maiden name seems to be a
non-issue. I suspect the same is true with Diana Skipwith. And, that
is an important point I think.
DR
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Dicey Capman/Chammon, wife of Armstead Blackwell and Tho
Douglas Richardson wrote:
How so? One example of "Dicey C. Crews" hardly justifies such a leap.
So, the argument of whether Dicey Capman
Sort of begging the question, eh? You have yet to present a single
instance where Dicey used her maiden name (not just the initial in
conjunction with her married name, which is hardly directly analogous to
using the maiden name alone).
OK, so because about four score and seven years later, Dicey's name once
appears with middle initial during her second marriage, then Diana
Skipwith must have used her maiden name while married. Clear as mud.
And, that
The important point seems to be that when one makes up their mind and
becomes invested in a particular solution, all of the evidence brought
forth is likely to be distorted and/or misapplied so as to appear to
support the predetermined conclusion.
taf
In Dicey (Capman/Chammon) Blackwell's case, there are no records of
what name she used when she was married to Armstead Blackwell. So, no
one can say what style she used during her first marriage. Following
Armstead Blackwell's death, she occurs in records as Dicey Capman.
Dicey Chammon, and Dicey Blackwell. After her second marriage to
Thomas Crews, she occur once as Dicey C. Crews.
Thus, it appears that Dicey Capman used her maiden name both as a widow
and during her 2nd marriage.
How so? One example of "Dicey C. Crews" hardly justifies such a leap.
So, the argument of whether Dicey Capman
was married or widowed when she used her maiden name seems to be a
non-issue.
Sort of begging the question, eh? You have yet to present a single
instance where Dicey used her maiden name (not just the initial in
conjunction with her married name, which is hardly directly analogous to
using the maiden name alone).
I suspect the same is true with Diana Skipwith.
OK, so because about four score and seven years later, Dicey's name once
appears with middle initial during her second marriage, then Diana
Skipwith must have used her maiden name while married. Clear as mud.
And, that
is an important point I think.
The important point seems to be that when one makes up their mind and
becomes invested in a particular solution, all of the evidence brought
forth is likely to be distorted and/or misapplied so as to appear to
support the predetermined conclusion.
taf
-
Austin W. Spencer
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
Hmmm. Well, something was "in partnership between Mr. Fogg and
themselves," and I don't think Ezekiell Fogg would have been very
interested in their house, so it does imply (to me at least) that she
had some sort of interest in the New Ironworks themselves ...
"Themselves," the general partners, were Mr. Fogg, Mr. Jeffard, and
Mrs. Gifford, if we read the language literally. But now that I have
had a chance to review other EQC references, I'm not sure that a
literal reading deserves credence in this case. Margaret shows no
personal involvement in this partnership aside from this one (Sept.
1674) session. Her husband granted her a power of attorney; under this
power, she appealed the decision of the court; and this is the only
time we see her in association with Ezekiel Fogg. It could be that the
clerk intended to write "Mr. Gifford owned." And it seems highly likely
that "Mr. Jeffard," the occupant of the dwelling house, was identical
with "Mr. Gifford," the partner in the ironworks. Documents on the same
page differ on his name -- "Mr. John Giffard" and "Mr. Jeffard" -- but
consistently recognize his rank.
Austin W. Spencer
-
Gjest
Re: Dicey Capman/Chammon, wife of Armstead Blackwell and Tho
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Based on your earlier post, am I right in interpreting this to mean
that Dicey Blackwell's maiden name isn't actually known, and that it is
assumed that it was Capman/Chammon because she was referred to by these
names/versions of one ur-name after Blackwell's decease?
In that case, Capman/Chammon could have been an earlier married name
(i.e. Blackwell wasn't her first husband); it could have been the name
of someone she was living with between her Blackwell and Crews
marriages (I have seen this in other contemporary British colonies eg
New South Wales); it could, depending on whether she was described as a
widow on the records to which you refer, have been a subsequent married
surname, a marriage/husband of short duration which is otherwise
unrecorded in the surviving records. It seems there is unsufficient
material to be able to draw any conclusions from this case.
Except that, during her marriage to Crews she simply used the middle
initial "C", which could mean a wider range of things than
Capman/Chammon, and, even if it did represent her maiden name, it was
used in conjunction with her married name, and thus would not be a
particularly relevant analogy to the Skipwith case.
Or might possibly be, if we actually knew more of the facts about Dicey
Crews.
Regards, Michael
In Dicey (Capman/Chammon) Blackwell's case, there are no records of
what name she used when she was married to Armstead Blackwell.
Based on your earlier post, am I right in interpreting this to mean
that Dicey Blackwell's maiden name isn't actually known, and that it is
assumed that it was Capman/Chammon because she was referred to by these
names/versions of one ur-name after Blackwell's decease?
In that case, Capman/Chammon could have been an earlier married name
(i.e. Blackwell wasn't her first husband); it could have been the name
of someone she was living with between her Blackwell and Crews
marriages (I have seen this in other contemporary British colonies eg
New South Wales); it could, depending on whether she was described as a
widow on the records to which you refer, have been a subsequent married
surname, a marriage/husband of short duration which is otherwise
unrecorded in the surviving records. It seems there is unsufficient
material to be able to draw any conclusions from this case.
So, no
one can say what style she used during her first marriage. Following
Armstead Blackwell's death, she occurs in records as Dicey Capman.
Dicey Chammon, and Dicey Blackwell. After her second marriage to
Thomas Crews, she occur once as Dicey C. Crews.
Thus, it appears that Dicey Capman used her maiden name both as a widow
and during her 2nd marriage.
Except that, during her marriage to Crews she simply used the middle
initial "C", which could mean a wider range of things than
Capman/Chammon, and, even if it did represent her maiden name, it was
used in conjunction with her married name, and thus would not be a
particularly relevant analogy to the Skipwith case.
So, the argument of whether Dicey Capman
was married or widowed when she used her maiden name seems to be a
non-issue. I suspect the same is true with Diana Skipwith. And, that
is an important point I think.
Or might possibly be, if we actually knew more of the facts about Dicey
Crews.
Regards, Michael
-
JTC
Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife
How many times am I going to have to say: WIDOWS WERE NOT OF THE SAME
LEGAL STATUS AS MARRIED WOMEN? Do you know what a search engine is?
Use one and type in "feme covert." Buy a good book on the subject and
read it.
If you want to believe these 1655 deeds were forged (which is the
weirdest suggestion yet), that's your business. But consider the
following:
As a final observation about the Thomas Carter prayer book, it is
generally thought that Katherine Dale was not Carter's first wife,
but there is no mention of this previous wife in the book. Perhaps the
reason is that Dale and Carter's first spouses were humbler than
Diana Skipwith? This is what was implied in Dr. Greene's letter.
If a man who left a will owned property not devised in that will, and
it was not legally conveyed, upon his death that property became an
intestate estate.
Of course there have been losses of records. We are talking about
people who have been dead longer than the USA has been in existence.
Sometimes people entered into conveyances, and those documents weren't
officially recorded for a number of years for whatever reason.
Sometimes the relinquishment of dower is not recorded with the
conveyance, but elsewhere in the record book. This does not mean that
we are missing some crucial document in this case. MichaelAnne's
speculations serve one purpose--they are an attempt to rescue the
Carter claim, a claim which has been disproved beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Forget about Skipwith being the daughter of a baronet--she had social
rank but that did not exempt her from the laws of the colony of VA.
Wealthier women than Skipwith were under their husband's thumbs--it's
just the way things were done in those days.
The next question is, who was the mother of Mary (Dale) Harrison Jones?
If Mary Dale was the mother of all of the Harrison children, then I
think there is no doubt she was a full sister to Katherine Carter.
I know this is tedious, but unlike Gary Boyd Roberts, who states in
RD600 2006 that the maternity of Katherine Carter has been disputed,
Douglas gives no such caveat in his volumes and purchasers will assume
that his documentation is correct, when in fact he's just moved back a
proposed Dale/Skipwith marriage date to accomodate his theory that
Katherine was Skipwith's daughter.
If Douglas won't remove the Carter claim from his next project, then he
should at least do what Roberts did and give the reader a "heads up"
that Katherine may not be Skikpwith's daughter. Douglas wants people
to see all the evidence when he's promoting his theory, but doesn't
want to give the other side the same privelege.
LEGAL STATUS AS MARRIED WOMEN? Do you know what a search engine is?
Use one and type in "feme covert." Buy a good book on the subject and
read it.
If you want to believe these 1655 deeds were forged (which is the
weirdest suggestion yet), that's your business. But consider the
following:
As a final observation about the Thomas Carter prayer book, it is
generally thought that Katherine Dale was not Carter's first wife,
but there is no mention of this previous wife in the book. Perhaps the
reason is that Dale and Carter's first spouses were humbler than
Diana Skipwith? This is what was implied in Dr. Greene's letter.
If a man who left a will owned property not devised in that will, and
it was not legally conveyed, upon his death that property became an
intestate estate.
Of course there have been losses of records. We are talking about
people who have been dead longer than the USA has been in existence.
Sometimes people entered into conveyances, and those documents weren't
officially recorded for a number of years for whatever reason.
Sometimes the relinquishment of dower is not recorded with the
conveyance, but elsewhere in the record book. This does not mean that
we are missing some crucial document in this case. MichaelAnne's
speculations serve one purpose--they are an attempt to rescue the
Carter claim, a claim which has been disproved beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Forget about Skipwith being the daughter of a baronet--she had social
rank but that did not exempt her from the laws of the colony of VA.
Wealthier women than Skipwith were under their husband's thumbs--it's
just the way things were done in those days.
The next question is, who was the mother of Mary (Dale) Harrison Jones?
If Mary Dale was the mother of all of the Harrison children, then I
think there is no doubt she was a full sister to Katherine Carter.
I know this is tedious, but unlike Gary Boyd Roberts, who states in
RD600 2006 that the maternity of Katherine Carter has been disputed,
Douglas gives no such caveat in his volumes and purchasers will assume
that his documentation is correct, when in fact he's just moved back a
proposed Dale/Skipwith marriage date to accomodate his theory that
Katherine was Skipwith's daughter.
If Douglas won't remove the Carter claim from his next project, then he
should at least do what Roberts did and give the reader a "heads up"
that Katherine may not be Skikpwith's daughter. Douglas wants people
to see all the evidence when he's promoting his theory, but doesn't
want to give the other side the same privelege.