This topic deserves further treatment. The law of primogeniture in Virginia was repealed in 1785. That is hardly "well after the Revolution." The law of primogeniture applied under two conditions: 1) A person had land but did not mention it in his will. In such a case, if the person had a son or sons, the land would automatically become the property of the eldest son (or only son). In this scenario, one may SOMETIMES find that an eldest son (or only son) not being named in a will because it was understood he was getting the land. One needs to make a careful review of the land records to prove such a father/son relationship. It should never be assumed simply because it conveniently solves a genealogical problem. 2) A person died without a will, owned land and had a son or sons. In such a case, all of the real property (not the personal property) would become the property of the eldest son, subject to the widow's dower rights of 1/3 interest in it for her life. (It is often written and stated that if the widow remarried, she lost her dower rights. This is not true. One reads that sort of language when the ENTIRE estate has been left to her in a life estate. This is where is usually written as "during her life or widowhood" or "if she remarries." This was not to punish the wife for remarrying. That was expected. It was done to protect the childrens' interest in the property. Even though the widow retained her dower thirds for her life, upon her death that interest reverted to her children by the deceased husband, not to her current husband or any children she may have had by a later marriage.) That land was cheap and available in Kentucky is without question. It would be a mistake, however, to make a conclusion that some one moved toKentucky simply upon the basis of the law of primogeniture in Virginia which was repealed in 1785. Craig Kilby Lancaster, VA On Aug 10, 2008, at 3:18 AM, germanna_colonies-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > ky was attractive because of the ability to acquire land relatively > easy. Until well after the Revolution, primogeniture was the law > in Virginia. > One archivist said that for that reason the eldest son's name may be > omitted from Virginia wills. By law, the eldest son was entitled > to the land. > Hence the big migration to Kentucky probably by those who were not > given land by > their fathers [as some of the land-wealthy fathers did] or did not > inherit > land in Virginia

Although the law of primogeniture may have been repealed in 1785, I found it still be practiced in Henry County, Virginia in the early 1800s. -----Original Message----- From: germanna_colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:germanna_colonies-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Craig Kilby Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 3:52 AM To: germanna_colonies@rootsweb.com Subject: [GERMANNA] Law of Primogeniture in Virginia This topic deserves further treatment. The law of primogeniture in Virginia was repealed in 1785. That is hardly "well after the Revolution." The law of primogeniture applied under two conditions: 1) A person had land but did not mention it in his will. In such a case, if the person had a son or sons, the land would automatically become the property of the eldest son (or only son). In this scenario, one may SOMETIMES find that an eldest son (or only son) not being named in a will because it was understood he was getting the land. One needs to make a careful review of the land records to prove such a father/son relationship. It should never be assumed simply because it conveniently solves a genealogical problem. 2) A person died without a will, owned land and had a son or sons. In such a case, all of the real property (not the personal property) would become the property of the eldest son, subject to the widow's dower rights of 1/3 interest in it for her life. (It is often written and stated that if the widow remarried, she lost her dower rights. This is not true. One reads that sort of language when the ENTIRE estate has been left to her in a life estate. This is where is usually written as "during her life or widowhood" or "if she remarries." This was not to punish the wife for remarrying. That was expected. It was done to protect the childrens' interest in the property. Even though the widow retained her dower thirds for her life, upon her death that interest reverted to her children by the deceased husband, not to her current husband or any children she may have had by a later marriage.) That land was cheap and available in Kentucky is without question. It would be a mistake, however, to make a conclusion that some one moved toKentucky simply upon the basis of the law of primogeniture in Virginia which was repealed in 1785. Craig Kilby Lancaster, VA On Aug 10, 2008, at 3:18 AM, germanna_colonies-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > ky was attractive because of the ability to acquire land relatively > easy. Until well after the Revolution, primogeniture was the law > in Virginia. > One archivist said that for that reason the eldest son's name may be > omitted from Virginia wills. By law, the eldest son was entitled > to the land. > Hence the big migration to Kentucky probably by those who were not > given land by > their fathers [as some of the land-wealthy fathers did] or did not > inherit > land in Virginia ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GERMANNA_COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message