I don't think this is off topic at all- In Pennsylvania, women could not own land until 1848. However, they had a dower right to 1/3 interest in any land acquired during the marriage. That is why the wife must sign when the land is sold, but she couldn't own it herself. A guardian was necessary to see to the children's affairs. Women were not supposed to be able to take care of finances, etc. When a man died, he left property, especially real estate, to his wife which she could use only during her lifetime, after which it would revert to a male heir. If he left it directly to the male heir, he would specify that the wife had use of a certain room in the house, and that the son would give her certain things every year, like a percentage of the profit from the farm, cash, firewood, keep for her livestock, so many bushels of wheat, apples, cider, etc. It is all spelled out very specifically. They couldn't just leave the property to the wife and let her manage it. In the case of your ancestor, "left in the care of" doesn't mean that the child left the house where his mother lived- it means that the guardian saw that the child was properly provided for, and would act in the mother's behalf on things like education, apprenticeships, and financial affairs. However, since it says "John Allen and wife" then perhaps the mother was ailing and could not care properly for the child. Anne Broomall Wiegle -----Original Message----- From: Wilma [SMTP:gencon@harborside.com] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:37 AM To: PACHESTE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PACHESTE] why guardian's Forgive me, I know this is [kinda] off subject.. but I have a question that has long bothered me... When a father / husband died the children were given guardian's why? The mother doesn't seem to have control over her children... For example... my 10th gr grandfahter, Lawrence LITCHFIELD "Lawrence died 1649-50 at Scituate..on his death bed he left his youngest son, Josiah to the care of John Allen and wife.." That is just one case I have found... the poor wife seem'd not to have much to say regarding her own children... I could understand this if the mother was deceased, it seems so sad to me that the children would be moved out of her home into someone elses.. She looses her husband and then her children?? Thanks for helping me out with this Wilma Fleming Haynes gencon@harborside.com ______________________________

Anna, an addition to your excellent article below. One of my ancestoresses, unmarried at the time, was left an equal share of land as her brothers received. She then proceeded to buy each one of the brothers out! When she married the taxes were no longer paid by her but by the husband. He disappears several years later (dead?) and she resumes paying the taxes and eventually writes a will - all in her maiden name - and this in 1828 in Chester Co, PA. Cathy ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Wiegle <awiegle@fast.net> To: <PACHESTE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 8:52 AM Subject: RE: [PACHESTE] why guardian's > I don't think this is off topic at all- > > In Pennsylvania, women could not own land until 1848. However, they had a dower > right to 1/3 interest in any land acquired during the marriage. That is why the > wife must sign when the land is sold, but she couldn't own it herself. > > A guardian was necessary to see to the children's affairs. Women were not > supposed to be able to take care of finances, etc. When a man died, he left > property, especially real estate, to his wife which she could use only during > her lifetime, after which it would revert to a male heir. If he left it > directly to the male heir, he would specify that the wife had use of a certain > room in the house, and that the son would give her certain things every year, > like a percentage of the profit from the farm, cash, firewood, keep for her > livestock, so many bushels of wheat, apples, cider, etc. It is all spelled out > very specifically. They couldn't just leave the property to the wife and let > her manage it. > > In the case of your ancestor, "left in the care of" doesn't mean that the child > left the house where his mother lived- it means that the guardian saw that the > child was properly provided for, and would act in the mother's behalf on things > like education, apprenticeships, and financial affairs. However, since it says > "John Allen and wife" then perhaps the mother was ailing and could not care > properly for the child. > > Anne Broomall Wiegle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilma [SMTP:gencon@harborside.com] > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:37 AM > To: PACHESTE-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PACHESTE] why guardian's > > Forgive me, I know this is [kinda] off subject.. but I have a question > that has long bothered me... > > When a father / husband died the children were given guardian's why? > The mother doesn't seem to have control over her children... > > For example... my 10th gr grandfahter, Lawrence LITCHFIELD > > "Lawrence died 1649-50 at Scituate..on his death bed he left his > youngest son, Josiah to the care of John Allen and wife.." > > That is just one case I have found... the poor wife seem'd not to have > much to say regarding her own children... > > I could understand this if the mother was deceased, it seems so sad > to me that the children would be moved out of her home into > someone elses.. She looses her husband and then her children?? > > Thanks for helping me out with this > > Wilma Fleming Haynes > gencon@harborside.com > > ______________________________ > > > ==== PACHESTE Mailing List ==== > Visit the PA GenWeb Archives at > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pa/pafiles.htm > > > > >