Re: Back to school
- From: <vewhite@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:05:23 -0400
---- "Peter W. Pesterhaus III" <binky9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm telling you the truth--
Absolutely when Diana Dale died she had something. So Vickie Elam
says the probate record must be lost. But is that really the case?
An entry from the Sparacio court order book for Lancaster Co., VA
1695-1699 p.4 shows that on March 11, 1695/6 Edward Carter, Katherine
Carter and Elizabeth Carter came into court and were granted probate
of Major Edward Dale's will.
This is apropos of nothing, but Dale's will stipulated that his gr-daughter Elizabeth Carter was to be appointed one of the executors when she turned 16. But, she had just turned 15, not 16, in March 1695/6. We know her birthdate from the Carter bible.
I wonder why the court ignored that part of the will?
Since Diana Dale died after her husband, I can assure you there is no
entry in the court orders granting anyone probate or administration on
her estate. And there would have been. This is what I meant when I
said you can die without leaving a will and yet not die intestate.
Therefore there was no such estate. When a woman's husband died, she
became "feme sole," or a legal entity capable of independent action.
It's obvious Diana Dale disposed of her property before she died. If
you have but one heir, who said she couldn't? If she wanted to give
Elizabeth Rogers 100 pounds, who was going to stop her? Cite me a
single law which says somebody just can't give their property away
before they die. The Carters were just happy to get Dale's property
without thermonuclear war in the courts.
So what Vickie thought was a devastating argument is actually powerful
supporting evidence for me.
Rubbish. Remember, I agree with you about Elizabeth being Diana's only child. I just don't think you've proven your case and that there are some red flags that need to be addressed. But I hardly think that what I floated was a "devastating argument." And I'm sure no one else but you thought that I did.
Of course a will is full of legal technicalites. What is the matter
And Will, you know absolutely nothing about marriage contracts. I'm
surprised you had the nerve to stick your snout out of you hole after
the drubbing I gave you.
You guys think it's smart to say "This could mean this" or "That could
mean that." None of you have cited anything in support of your
position. What you are really saying is "I don't know and I'm too
lazy to find out." Do you think you're fooling anybody?
It's interesting to me that in Linda Sturtz's book she doesn't say
"This could mean this" or "This could mean that." She says "This is
what that means." Why? Because unlike you people she spent many
years researching the topic.
What's happening here is that some people have seen the bibliography I
put together and some of them are going to buy and read those books.
And when they do, in less than a month, they're going to see you
idiots for the charlatans you are. Sturtz has forgotten more about
the subject of women and property than all of you know put together.
Her readers will be able to come on this board and wipe the walls with
MichaelAnne is gone. This isn't "Les Miserable"--I wish her luck in
future endeavors. But for you guys it's just beginning. Good luck.
What a snobby prig you are! We don't agree with everything you say so we're beginners? I have been a researcher for 40 years, but my focus is more on New England, NY and early TN than VA. But I have done my fair share of early VA research, as evidenced by my posts here and elsewhere. I freely admit I have a lot to learn about it. That's what these lists are for.
Vickie Elam White
- Prev by Date: Re: Back to school
- Next by Date: Re: Back to school
- Previous by thread: Re: Back to school
- Next by thread: Re: Back to school