From: <Thyme1954@aol.com> To: <PALUZERN-L@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [PALUZERN] Ward of the Orphans Court-early 1800 In that era when women did not have the right to vote, there were many other rights they did not have. Women did not automatically own the estate when the husband died. Unless the husband specifically stated in his will what he was giving to her, in Penna. and many other states, the complete estate went to the oldest son; the other children received nothing unless specified in the will. I have seen wills where the wife was given one cow and a place for that cow to graze for one year. After that she had nothing. And the rest of the estate went to the oldest son. I have seen numerable wills where if the wife remarried she got very little. The husband was protecting himself and making the rules even thought the wife may have brought a dowery to the marriage. Many wills stated the wife had the right to live there the rest of her life unless she remarried and stated the amount the son (who inherited most of the estate) had to supply her with for her yearly needs even including the firewood being split ready for her to put into the stove. Wills are very revealing -- some showed much love, others the wife almost appears to be part of his property. Usually a guardian was appointed when the father left an estate. Children under 14 had guardians under one ruling and those over 14 could choose their guardian. Again it was to protect the money. Since women could not go to court a man needed to be appointed guardian. Usually it was a family member or close friend who could afford to put up the bond to cover the amount of the estate. And the case was not settled until the youngest child reached his/her maturity. Later the mother was often appointed guardian when her husband died. Also remember there was no welfare then, only the poor house where the man was sent when he could not pay his bills. So the mother would need to find relatives, friends or neighbors who were willing to feed and clothe one or two children in return for "helping" around the farm or house. Here again there were good and also bad conditions. Some became family members, including taking that person's name for his own. This helped farmers who had no natural children. Some census records list a child as a "son" for a child they raised -- but not blood related. Hope this helps Helen Smith Gammon

--- Helen S Gammon <hsmithg@doitnow.com> wrote: > Some became family members, including taking that > person's name for his own. This helped farmers who > had no natural children. Some census records list a > child as a "son" for a child they raised -- but not > blood related. This happened if it was the mother who died as well. After her mother died in 1919, my grandmother is listed as an O'Malley daughter in the 1920 census even though her father, Peter McClymer, was still alive. I haven't been able to figure out yet if the O'Malley's were relatives or just friends. Her brother John became John Hines. After Morgan Harris' mother died in 1895, he lived with her parents and took their name, becoming Morgan Edwards. He referred to them as his parents & his aunts and uncles as his siblings, even though his father, Morgan Harris Sr, was still alive and nothing was ever done officially. His sister, Gertrude Harris, went to live with their paternal grandmother, who had been widowed and remarried to a Morgan, and she used the name Gertrude Morgan and was listed as a daughter. Only the oldest, their brother John, who continued to live with their father, used the name Harris throughout his life. Alaine __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/