View Full Version : 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.
kiterunner
06-01-19, 11:58
I think it was pretty common, Vita.
I've certainly seen it before, Vita, and more than once. It caught my eye as it's caught yours.
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.
maggie_4_7
06-01-19, 14:09
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.
kiterunner
06-01-19, 14:42
If you Google the phrase "long as she remains my widow" in quotes, more than 7,000 results come up.
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.
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?
Olde Crone
06-01-19, 15:45
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
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.
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.
Thats more or less what Edward did. He left all his 'money & estates' to
his 'well beloved wife' but 'all that she enjoyed' would go to his daughters if she
remarried.
And yes, Phoenix - Hannah Jr. (my 7xg/grandmother) was the natural
of daughter of Edward & Hannah.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.