Re: Daniel, b. ca. 1603 (England?), d. 1668, Newtown, Long Island, NY
-
In reply to:
Daniel, b. ca. 1603 (England?), d. 1668, Newtown, Long Island, NY
Duane Boggs 10/12/09
An additional bit of circumstantial evidence might shed light on whether Adam Whitehead was the son of Jean/Jane (MNU) (Whitehead) Ingersoll.
One should consider the state of the law of intestate succession as of 1681 in this British colony of New York.I believe that, generally, inheriting the property of someone who has died without leaving a Last Will is based on the degree of consanguinity (or "shared blood").When Adam died, presumably without a wife or children, the law would have looked to see who his closest relatives were.IF Jean/Jane had been his mother, she would have been closest in blood to him, followed by any full siblings (i.e., those who shared the same mother AND father with Adam), and then half sibs (those who shared only one parent with Adam).Apparently NONE of Adam's property went to Jean/Jane, which COULD indicate that she was not his birth mother but only his step-mother (with zero degree of consanguinity).The siblings would have been next in line (because both Adam's birth mother, possibly Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead, and his father, the late Daniel Whitehead, were already dead).Of course, if Adam was the full-blood sibling of Daniel, Jonathan and David, and any sisters (like Sarah (Whitehead) Oakley), they should have shared in his estate.The estate was small, however, and those other siblings all adults, and it may have been deemed charitable to split Adam's estate only among his younger, needy (half?) siblings.Certainly this would have been the preference of Jean/Jane and her new husband, John Ingersoll, who had the expense of rearing these younger siblings of Adam.
Does anyone have a better/different understanding of what inferences we might draw from the laws of intestate succession as applied to the facts of Adam's situation?