I've been meaning for some time to write to the list about Ulrich Howry. In the messages I exchange with other researchers, I often see him listed as the father of Jacob, as though this were proved or even possible. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to make a few observations. I think that most researchers of the Pennsylvania and Virginia Howrys accept that the Hans who received a grant of land in Lancaster Co, Pennsylvania in 1718 was either the Woolweaver Hans (accepted voluntary exile from Switzerland in 1711 because of his Mennonite faith and emigrated to Amsterdam) or the Woolweaver's son of the same name. Also, I think that most researchers accept that the Hans and Ulrich Howry of Lancaster Co, Pennsylvania were the two unnamed sons of Hans the Woolweaver who travelled with him in 1711. Hans, we agree, left numerous descendants in Lancaster Co, but what happened to Ulrich? Ulrich was granted land at Conestoga in Lancaster Co in 1717 and appears on tax assessments there until 1722, but not in 1723. He made his will on 13 July 1723. The will does not survive, but a short abstract does, filed in Chester Co, Pennsylvania. According to the abstract, Ulrich divided his estate between his wife Barbara and his brethren. To the casual researcher, this is merely interesting information that happens to provide the name of his wife. However, to anyone familiar with the cultural and legal norms of the time, the will does everything but say flat out that Ulrich was childless. To understand why this is so, we have to understand that to our Colonial ancestors (and particularly those from German backgrounds) property was much more rigidly disposed than it is with us. There was a strong bias, both cultural and legal, that real estate belonged to a man's family and the individual owner, in some sense, was merely the current caretaker as representative of the family. A woman brought certain agreed property to a marriage (generally furniture and other movables) and received upon marriage a certain statutory or customary share of her husband's real estate that would be hers no matter what happened. The rest of her husband's estate was his and his family's, not hers. It was thought proper that it pass to his heirs not to his widow. If the couple had children, the widow got her share and his children (his heirs) divided the rest. If the couple was childless (this is the important part), the widow got her share and the husband's brothers (his heirs) got the rest. Ulrich and Barbara must have been childless. She took her share, his brothers divided the rest. Ulrich's will did nothing more than put the custom of the time into writing. If Ulrich had had any children, even if Barbara wasn't their mother, it would have been scandalous for him to leave the balance to his brothers and not to his children. Jacob, ancestor of the Virginia family, cannot have been the son of Ulrich. However, it's interesting that Ulrich had brothers (plural). The only brother we know about was Hans. Could Jacob have been a third brother who did not accompany his father in 1711? Justin C.S. Howery Denver, Colorado jhowery@tde.com http://www.members.tde.com/jhowery