> Fran's note about women not being allowed to own property caught me by > surprise. My great grandmother seems to have bought and sold property in her > own right, when she was married. Perhaps the property ownership laws varied > by state? Does anyone have access to the Susan B. Anthony state reports? > These reports, researched and authored by women, assessed the rights of women > in each of the states; I think the reports were writtern around the turn of > the century, but maybe I don't recall it just right. > Fran was speaking off the top of her head, assuming that women couldn't own property because of vague memories of things read in the past and because I found that damning questioning of women on several deeds that I looked at in Bradford Co. and in Livingston Co., NY. The actual laws probably did vary, as well as simple custom. And also whether the woman had a husband or not. It would be a good research project (but not for me right now). Glad to know about the Anthony reports. Will save the reference for future look-up. Fran in southern NM where it has actually been raining!!

This was in practice in Texas in 1950 when my husband and I bought a house. I was taken aside to assure them that I was not acting under the duress of my husband. Peggy R. Rogers progers@crosslink.net ----- Original Message ----- From: TIMOTHY A.DRAKE <timdrake@pinn.net> To: <PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 9:46 PM Subject: [PABRADFO] Women and Lans Sales > Why were women in the 1800's asked questions to insure that they were > making a free decision to buy or sell land? In reading deeds to property > at the Bradford and Tioga Court Houses I read several deeds involving > women where they seem to have been taken aside and questioned , and then > assurance was given that they were making a decision of their own free > will. > > ______________________________

Isn't the Queen of England's husband referred to as her consort? Linda Selub -----Original Message----- From: montrose [mailto:montrose@ptdprolog.net] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 6:11 PM To: PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PABRADFO] Consort?? Consort has nothing to do with illegitimacy. When "consort" was used in that respect it meant her husband was living compared to "relict" where the husband was deceased. J. Kelsey Jones ----- Original Message ----- From: <Barbours@aol.com> To: <PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: [PABRADFO] Consort?? > In the Sheshequin Universalist cemetery, Ruth E. Spalding is listed as the > "consort" of Gen. Simon. > > Does this mean our whole family line is illegitimate? Good grief! > > Jean Spalding Barbour > >

Fran's note about women not being allowed to own property caught me by surprise. My great grandmother seems to have bought and sold property in her own right, when she was married. Perhaps the property ownership laws varied by state? Does anyone have access to the Susan B. Anthony state reports? These reports, researched and authored by women, assessed the rights of women in each of the states; I think the reports were writtern around the turn of the century, but maybe I don't recall it just right. For my part, I'm trying to find out how my great, great grandmother--who lived in Tioga County in 1875 and who had been separated from her husband in the West Indies (Danish back then) since 1865, got US citizenship. Everyone says she would have gotten it through her husband, but he never came to the US that I can find; he died in St. Croix, VI in 1877, I think. I haven't been able to find out how women-without-husbands (WWOH) got citizenshp. Does anyone know whom to ask? Cheers from NC. Laura

Women had almost no legal rights in that era. They were completely under the will of either their husband or another male relative such as father or brother. Because they had no economic resources or political power they could easily be intimidated and threatened and frequently were. Truly, a woman did not even have a "home of her own." She lived in the home of her husband and whatever economic resources she had, they were legally controlled by her husband. It was very disadvantageous for a woman with any property to marry, as control and management of it immediately became the husband's. A married woman had no power at all and a single woman had very little. Without money an unmarried woman was at the mercy of relatives to whom she would serve as a household servant. If married, the revenues earned by her, wither independently or as part of the cooperative enterprise of the farm, were considered the property of the husband. In wills, when daughters were left property, both she and her husband had to sign. In the case of sons left property, their wives did not have any role whatever in it. All that a woman did had to be done with the "permission" of the husband. It was not true adulthood as we know it. The only place where a woman had anything like an identity was in the church (as a member only - not as part of the governing body) and the position of the churches was to persuade these women that their rightful place was in the subservient and powerless role. In the nineteenth century census records you will see numerous incidents of widowed women listed as household members in their former home under the "head of household" status of a son who may not even have reached majority. There are many books published on the subject of the legal and economic status of women in earlier times and there are links to many sites on the subject from the Womens Page which you can find in the Online Research Library of <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-County Genealogy Site of Joyce M. Tice</A> Anyway, this is a well researched and well published historical discipline and many resources are available to document it. An excellent book is the Way of Duty which are the diaries of an eighteenth century woman who went through three marriages, in the third of which the fortune she had accumulated in the her lifetime was lost by her husband who had full control of it. Joyce M. Tice

> Why were women in the 1800's asked questions to insure that they were > making a free decision to buy or sell land? In reading deeds to property > at the Bradford and Tioga Court Houses I read several deeds involving > women where they seem to have been taken aside and questioned , and then > assurance was given that they were making a decision of their own free > will. Women weren't allowed to own property, or at least not allowed to buy or sell it if they had a husband. I was in Towanda last month collecting deeds. My great-grandfather divided his land among his wife and young children in his will. Presumably my great grandmother inherited her share in her own right. But she remarried, and when she and two of her now grown children sold their shares to my grandfather, it was her husband, and her daughter's husband whose names were on the transaction. The two women were taken aside and asked if they agreed to the sale. I'm glad that women were given even that much consideration in the disposal of their own property. The antiquated laws were lucky for me because I've been wanting to know for years who her new husband was and where they lived. Finally found out on that deed. Fran Clark in New Mexico

Why were women in the 1800's asked questions to insure that they were making a free decision to buy or sell land? In reading deeds to property at the Bradford and Tioga Court Houses I read several deeds involving women where they seem to have been taken aside and questioned , and then assurance was given that they were making a decision of their own free will.

I take exception to "Relic" If you don't mind.R ----- Original Message ----- From: "montrose" <montrose@ptdprolog.net> To: <PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 17 10 PM Subject: Re: [PABRADFO] Consort?? > Consort has nothing to do with illegitimacy. When "consort" was used in that > respect it meant her husband was living compared to "relict" where the > husband was deceased. > > J. Kelsey Jones > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Barbours@aol.com> > To: <PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 6:43 PM > Subject: [PABRADFO] Consort?? > > > > In the Sheshequin Universalist cemetery, Ruth E. Spalding is listed as the > > "consort" of Gen. Simon. > > > > Does this mean our whole family line is illegitimate? Good grief! > > > > Jean Spalding Barbour > > > > > >

Consort has nothing to do with illegitimacy. When "consort" was used in that respect it meant her husband was living compared to "relict" where the husband was deceased. J. Kelsey Jones ----- Original Message ----- From: <Barbours@aol.com> To: <PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: [PABRADFO] Consort?? > In the Sheshequin Universalist cemetery, Ruth E. Spalding is listed as the > "consort" of Gen. Simon. > > Does this mean our whole family line is illegitimate? Good grief! > > Jean Spalding Barbour > >

Consort means spouse. A relict is the widow of a human being. Joyce M. Tice << Subj: [PABRADFO] Consort?? Date: 06/26/2000 6:53:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Barbours@aol.com To: PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com In the Sheshequin Universalist cemetery, Ruth E. Spalding is listed as the "consort" of Gen. Simon. Does this mean our whole family line is illegitimate? Good grief! Jean Spalding Barbour >>

In the Sheshequin Universalist cemetery, Ruth E. Spalding is listed as the "consort" of Gen. Simon. Does this mean our whole family line is illegitimate? Good grief! Jean Spalding Barbour

Hi All Friends and Guests of <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counties Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A> I have just formatted and uploaded 24 more pages to the Veteran Burial section of the site. You can reach this form Box 12C of the Online Research Library. This brings it to thirty pages altogether and takes us as far as the Ca names. I also stopped at a cemetery I passed today and photographed some more military markers to add to the site. I now have seven different ones decorating the pages. I can see that this is another one of those elements that once you start observing them, you will find all kinds of variation. It will be fun to try to find others that I have not already photographed. Joyce M> Tice <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counti es Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A>

Joyce I want to thank you for this wonderful site. I have recently met a friend who lives on my great grandfathers farm. Through her I have met three cousins. I am looking forward to meeting them personally sometime this fall. Again, thanks for your wonderful site. Roberta Selub Reearching MACE and SCHRADER ---------- >From: JoyceTice@aol.com >To: PABRADFO-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [PABRADFO] New at Tri-Counties Site Sunday 11:50 AM >Date: Sun, Jun 25, 2000, 9:53 AM > > Hi All, I formatted and uploaded seven more pages of the Veteran Burial > database. This gets me up to Beaumont. Check it out from Box 12 B of the > Online Research Library of <A > HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counties Genealogy & > History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A> > > Joyce M. Tice > >

Someone on the list, wanted to know where "Great Flatts" was located. Well according to Albert S. Eggleton, of the Chemung Historical Journal, page 61, of Dec. 1955: The Attsingnetsing Indians and early whitle settlers used that name to described what is now known as "Big Flats", N.Y. Hope this helps someone. Alice (Pease) Hartford -Living and Learning Daily-

I'm searching for a Joshua [Joshway] Drake and his wife Eleanor. Do not know what town the lived in. Donald R. Schoenfeld schoen@freewwweb.com Jacksonville, Fl.

Hi All, I have just linked the 1880 Orwell Township census from the Orwell Township page of <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Cou nties Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A> Joyce M. Tice

Hi All, I have written and uploaded a page of Known Lost and Unmarked Burial Locations in Sullivan Township. You can reach it from the Sullivan Township Page of <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counties Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A> . I know that there are people out there with a high level of local knowledge of particular townships in the Tri-County area who could do a similar collection of information for other townships, and I hope they will do that. Many of these burials are known only through family legend and if it is not recorded, this knowledge will be lost. I'd like to eventually have a similar page for all townships in the three counties. Joyce M. Tice <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counti es Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A>

Joyce & all, The cemetery in question is the D. Wichkam (Fox) Estate Cemetery. It is actually located in Windham Twp, adjacent to the E. side of PA Rte 187, 0.2 miles N. of Ray Merrill's Garage. It is cemetery number 29 in the Bradford County Veterans Graves Registration Records. See the cemetery file provided by me and on Joyce's site. Information on the three veterans listed as buried there will be available on Joyce's site in the not too distant future. The three veterans buried within: Thomas Fox, Revolutionary War; Thomas Fox, unknown service, probably War of 1812; Jonathan Payne, War of 1812. I visited this cemetery in 1995 and would like some hefty help in reading it. It is a mess and will require moving several heavy headstones. Dick McCracken Townada, PA -- Plan Your Work... Work Your Plan...

Hi All, I have just uploaded a little article by Kelsey Jones about some flooded out McLelland burials in Columbia Township. You can reach it from the Columbia Township page of <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counties Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A> This reminds me that I need to do a write-up on the unmarked burials in Sullivan and Rutland Townships that I know of. I can think of at least seven locations in Sullivan where I know of unmarked burials without even spending any time thinking. I will do that next. BUT, we really should have a page for each township where any known family information about burials that were unmarked can be recorded. In the case of the Sullivan burials, some are very early pioneers or sometimes stillborn children. This same phenomenon is true in every one of our townships and this information can be collected and displayed here IF you will all help in that effort. Remember that this site can only be as good as the materials contributed by site guests and that means YOU. Don't wait for the next person to do it. I will get my listing up a little later today and I hope that all of you will spend some time thinking about this issue and let me know anything you know about the subject - by township. Joyce M. Tice

Hi All, I formatted and uploaded seven more pages of the Veteran Burial database. This gets me up to Beaumont. Check it out from Box 12 B of the Online Research Library of <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/jmtindex.htm">Tri-Counties Genealogy & History Sites of Joyce M. Tice</A> Joyce M. Tice