Someone is bitter. Joy and I were just mentioning that it would be good for the name of a child to be mentioned when he/she is born and equally the wife's name should be mentioned as it is today in Western countries. Chattel or not, without her the child would not be born, she often had no choice in the matter...what woman could possibly ask for so many. I know my gran didn't even want for 4 children she had...she told me how she went on long bicycle rides in the hope of getting rid of the 4th child. Both are responsible for the arrival of a child unless, of course, as often happened, the husband suddenly vanishes leaving his wife to raise 8 to 12 children leaving her penniless while he bigamously marries in some foreign country. Or, she meets someone else knowing that her husband has no intention of returning to support his family. A woman would find it extremely difficult to abandon her children, especially in days gone past but a man often abandoned them all. I speak from research experience. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sindberg [mailto:sindbergj@yahoo.com] Sent: 09 December 2014 19:41 To: Joy Hungerford; Liz; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] The West Briton, 29 Oct 1858, BMDs, THOMAS or JAMES birth at Towednack What this has to do with the subject: The West Briton... I have no idea. But here is my 2 cents worth. Each was chattel to the other. The husband had to protect his wife and children, even to death. The husband had to provide for his wife and children. Generally he worked away from the comforts of his home and in a more dangerous environment than his wife. The husband was expected to sire children for his wife. He was her chattel also. They both had responsibilities to each other. Back then life expectancy was about the same for both. Not like it is today where husbands die several years younger than their wives. Husband still protect their wives better than wives their husbands. Wives still make the babies, husbands don't/can't. JimS chattel of Karen On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:36 AM, Joy Hungerford via <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> wrote: I agree with you, Liz, about Bill's valuable contributions. But what really gets me is the reporting of a woman as 'the wife of ??' Just a chattel, of course! Kind regards Chattel of Michael Hungerford

Hello list, re this question of anonymous family members, we just have to accept that this was the accepted form at the time, and our kind transcribers can only copy what's printed. Regarding Bill Curnow's informative post re the Berriman family, the Lutey family were still farming at Carfury until recently, but the name itself has mow I think died out, about the last of them, Herbert Lutey, was a long serving local councillor, and sometime chairman of Penwith District Council. The White family continued at Merry Meeting until at least he 1990's; the farm is just outside Heamoor. If I don't post again before the day, a Happy Christmas to all listers from Horton in bright and breezy Penzance -----Original Message----- From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Liz via Sent: 09 December 2014 20:33 To: 'Jim Sindberg'; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] The West Briton, 29 Oct 1858, BMDs,THOMAS or JAMES birth at Towednack Someone is bitter. Joy and I were just mentioning that it would be good for the name of a child to be mentioned when he/she is born and equally the wife's name should be mentioned as it is today in Western countries. Chattel or not, without her the child would not be born, she often had no choice in the matter...what woman could possibly ask for so many. I know my gran didn't even want for 4 children she had...she told me how she went on long bicycle rides in the hope of getting rid of the 4th child. Both are responsible for the arrival of a child unless, of course, as often happened, the husband suddenly vanishes leaving his wife to raise 8 to 12 children leaving her penniless while he bigamously marries in some foreign country. Or, she meets someone else knowing that her husband has no intention of returning to support his family. A woman would find it extremely difficult to abandon her children, especially in days gone past but a man often abandoned them all. I speak from research experience. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sindberg [mailto:sindbergj@yahoo.com] Sent: 09 December 2014 19:41 To: Joy Hungerford; Liz; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com; cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] The West Briton, 29 Oct 1858, BMDs, THOMAS or JAMES birth at Towednack What this has to do with the subject: The West Briton... I have no idea. But here is my 2 cents worth. Each was chattel to the other. The husband had to protect his wife and children, even to death. The husband had to provide for his wife and children. Generally he worked away from the comforts of his home and in a more dangerous environment than his wife. The husband was expected to sire children for his wife. He was her chattel also. They both had responsibilities to each other. Back then life expectancy was about the same for both. Not like it is today where husbands die several years younger than their wives. Husband still protect their wives better than wives their husbands. Wives still make the babies, husbands don't/can't. JimS chattel of Karen On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:36 AM, Joy Hungerford via <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> wrote: I agree with you, Liz, about Bill's valuable contributions. But what really gets me is the reporting of a woman as 'the wife of ??' Just a chattel, of course! Kind regards Chattel of Michael Hungerford ------------------------------- Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message