Andrew McRaw, Perthshire - Many missing years.....

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:04 pm

My computer is acting up at the moment and in trying to send mail before it freezes I forgot to say that William died in 1839. Not sure when he originally made the Will but as Eliz. m. Andrew in 1818 he must have known his son in law at the time of writing it.
Rae

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:40 pm

Hi Rae
I'm not an expert on wills or legal stuff - far from it - but I have come across similar wording in at least one of the wills that I have downloaded. I took it to be "legalese" to ensure the inherited money was the property of the daughters, not joint property of the daughter and her spouse, as I'm sure it would have been otherwise, if it had not been clearly stated. I'm not sure that in itself it implies any "dodgy" character on the part of the son-in-law. (or maybe I've got a few black sheep too!!) I think it might have been fairly standard practice and wording within wills when bequeathing to daughters. I'm sure someone who is more up on the legal side could expand on this.

I think perhaps as well we need to see it in the context of the times we are tallking about when the husband in a marriage "called the shots" (changed days, huh?

) and women didn't really have much power within the household, or within the law if they chose to divorce or leave their husband.

I just assumed it was to make absolutely sure that the daughter would have means of her own to fall back on & that the inheritance would not be er, ...spent on booze by her husband or frittered away on some daft business venture of his or go to pay any debt the husband had run up!

Best wishes
Lesley

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:45 pm

Hi John

GROS have a target date of 2nd week in June for the availability of 1841, 1851, and 1861 census images in New Register House

Thats good news for a lot of people, I'm sure!
Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **AnneM** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:29 pm

Hi

It strikes me as standard wording because at that stage a husband had the right to all of the woman's moveable property by virtue of the jus mariti and to administer her land related property under the jus administrationis. To be sure of the date when that came to an end I would have to check my books which I will do. This is a rough statement of how things were in the meantime.

Anne

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:55 pm

Thanks to everyone for their replies.
Will keep on hunting for answers after the hols.
Computer now back to factory settings so hopefully will keep me going in family history for some time to come! Would rather spend the money on genealogy than a newfangled computer! Thank goodness all my information was backed up. I get very complacent when it is working well.
Rae

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:30 pm

I think I may have had a breakthrough at last. [-o<. He has been very elusive and I thought I had tried all sort of permutations on S.P. but with a name like McRaw there are so many. While on Ancestry today I thought I would give him a try there.
In 1861 census up comes an Andrew McRea, born Forteviot, a Gardener and he is boarding at the Crown Hotel, Auchterarder - must be him!
Then in 1851 census for Stone, Staffordshire, there is an Andrew McRee, a lodger, Nurseryman, born Perthshire - must be him!
The age, give or take a year or so, is about right in each case too.
After months of searching for him I am sure this must be my 3 times gr gr'father. Does anyone agree?
Rae

TalkingScot.com

Andrew McRaw, Perthshire - Many missing years.....

think I've found him!