Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Research Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-19, 11:56
vita vita is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,015
Default Would this have been unusual?

I'm preparing a piece on 8xg/grandfather Edward Redman who stipulated in his
will of 1681 that his wife remain a widow or lose her inheritance. Could anyone please tell me if this would have been unusual for the time? I have researched
the question but so far not been able to find a will with the same condition.
I'm trying to establish whether he was being a bit of a control freak or whether
this might have been quite common.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-19, 11:58
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,301
Default

I think it was pretty common, Vita.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-19, 11:59
Janet's Avatar
Janet Janet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Niagara County
Posts: 2,017
Default

I've certainly seen it before, Vita, and more than once. It caught my eye as it's caught yours.
__________________
My time and date


Janet (Niagara)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-19, 12:11
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,648
Default

In the days before the Married Woman's Property Act, this might be regarded as a form of protection for the woman. There must have been plenty of plausible rogues, interested in a widow's fortune, rather than her own fair self.

The other scenario (apart from bloody mindedness on the part of the testator) is widow and new husband enjoying the children's inheritance.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-19, 14:09
maggie_4_7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
In the days before the Married Woman's Property Act, this might be regarded as a form of protection for the woman. There must have been plenty of plausible rogues, interested in a widow's fortune, rather than her own fair self.

The other scenario (apart from bloody mindedness on the part of the testator) is widow and new husband enjoying the children's inheritance.
Yes it is exactly that, it probably was a good safeguard in those days but would now seem extraordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-19, 14:42
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,301
Default

If you Google the phrase "long as she remains my widow" in quotes, more than 7,000 results come up.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-19, 14:58
vita vita is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiterunner View Post
If you Google the phrase "long as she remains my widow" in quotes, more than 7,000 results come up.
Well, that seems to indicate it wasn't too unusual! Thanks Kite & all - Edward

did make provision for his children but stipulated that wife Hannah

forfeit her inheritance if she remarried, in which case it would pass on to

daughters Hannah & Margaret.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-19, 15:18
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,648
Default

Presumably Hannah senior was the natural mother of Hannah junior?
So if she died a widow, she would be likely to leave her own estate to her daughters?
Or did she simply have a life interest?
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-19, 15:45
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,819
Default

Even today, if a widow remarries, she forfeits her husband's pension.

In the early 1980s, a friend was widowed at the age of 25 with two small children. She remarried about 5 years later and had to give up the house she had lived in with her husband because his parents had bought the house for them and presumably had no interest in housing a stranger!

OC
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-01-19, 03:16
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

Another way the men controlled the wife was to let her have use of the property for the term of her life or until she remarried and then it passed to the next in line to inherit. Or you could look at it as though the husband made sure that the next in line could not evict the wife, leaving her destitute, when her husband died.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:44.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.