On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:35:41 -0500 (EST) Jo Ann McNamara
wrote:
> Terry, you flatter! I was sitting back expecting others
to plunge in on
> this one but I will venture that the distance between
Laura and Jim is in
> the word "disposable." Wives (with living and present
husbands)
> certainly owned property and their dowries and dower
rights, etc. went
> with them into widowhood and were held sacrosanct from
most legal
> proceedings which might penalize husbands with
confiscation. And, of
> course, some wives were feme soles, whose independent
business dealings
> left them "uncovered" by their husbands. But as time went
by, at
> different rates in different localities and strata, fewer
and fewer wives
> could dispose independently of their own property. In
most cases, its
> management came under their husbands' control and their
husbands were
> responsible for debts they incurred with it. This does
not mean that
> they were not consulted in the disposition of their
property or that they
> might not initiate projects of their own (particularly
along the lines of
> patronage or charitable foundations) which their husbands
would approve
> without difficulty. So, in a general way, everyone is
right here, I think.
>
> Jo Ann
Phew! Glad not to have complete omelette on face. Thanks,
Laura
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|