Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Topic 1:
I am aware of the will and codicil of Alexander's which kept the lands on each side of the family, supposedly. The acquisition of James' and John's by Samuel is easily enough understood, given both the conditions of the will and codicil, as well as the deed information available on those tracts.
I have (finally) found my sources, which agree with yours, on the sale of Elizabeth's land to Samuel by her brothers, Alexander and Nathaniel. I appreciate you reminding me of those, since I obviously forgot them by mentioning that Samuel "somehow got her lands..." and could not remember why it had been split up from its original acreage. (Thanks again for reminding me to look for those.)
However, I have to disagree that the simplest explanation is the one that half-agrees and half-disagrees with the accepted tradition. The simplest explanation for the transfer and divisions of land by itself, by all of the information thus provided, is that Elizabeth died young and the land passed to her two brothers, Alexander and Nathaniel, per her father's will. This would agree with the documentation and it would still put Elizabeth as being dead by 1701, which does nothing to prove or disprove that she could have been married, to John Pottinger or otherwise.
Now, the "WHY" it passed to her brothers and not to someone else is actually a second part of the problem. It is equally possible that: 1.) she died unmarried and thus, had no one to pass the land on to; 2.) she died married but childless and her land reverted back to her brothers because she did not have "issue," meaning children. (This rule in Alexander's will does not require being married or unmarried since Alexander specified children and not spouses in the will). It is also possible that: 3.) she died married and with children and just did not want the land to go out of the family; or even 4.) she died married and with children and the brothers assumed or bought out her husband's interest in the property to keep it in the family.
Option 1 - very possible and even likely, however, there are one or two details on record which would suggest this is not the case. For one, the language of the will and codicil by her father, Alexander, would suggest that Elizabeth, along with her half-brothers, were all equally interested in receiving their inherited land and not waiting around for it. In this case, as much as this implies, I doubt very much that Elizabeth would have waited at least 4 years, if not more, for that piece of property if she knew she could get it by just getting married. (I am not saying that she married just for the land, however, it could very well have influenced her decisions at the time.)
Option 2 - very possible, highly likely, and probable (in my book). Given the language of her father's will, the family tradition of her childless marriage to John Pottinger, the fact that the land does revert back to her brothers, and the language in Samuel's will; this really does seem to agree with the majority of sources and is a likely scenario for the times given the problems with childbirth, disease, medical care, etc. This scenario would also include possibility of dying during childbirth which would serve to explain both her death and lack of an heir.
Option 3 - possible but much less likely. An argument could be made for it but it is much less feasible than #1 or 2. There is something to be said for her "Magruder-ness" but one would think she would put her children before anyone else in her will.
Option 4 - still possible but very, very unlikely that this is the case. Of the two Magruder lines, Nathaniel and Alexander seem much less concerned about such things, as primarily exemplified in their sale of "their land" (Elizabeth's) over to Samuel on the other side of the family. I do not believe they would have seen anything wrong with Elizabeth leaving her land to her children, either by will or default, and certainly didn't seem hard pressed to sell it to Samuel after her death.
As for your Scenario 1 and 2 in your last post, both involve the sale of the land to her brothers, which in my book is highly unlikely, given her obvious interest in the land in the first place. As for a marriage with surviving children to someone else named "John" (i.e. the John Rigden you mentioned), I think it is also highly unlikely that she would have not passed her land to her son or daughter.
As for Topic 2, I'll put my comments in post #1169 which deals with Sarah directly.
(Please don't get me wrong, by the way, I really enjoy the theoretical discussion and I think it is essential to try to look at the facts from all angles. I think everyone who reads these forums will get as much out of the discussions as they do the bare references.)
JD
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/magruder/messages/1170.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|