• Join - It's Free

Mary Yate (Tattershall) - Mary or Elizabeth?

Started by Private User on Friday, October 2, 2020
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing 61-76 of 76 posts

https://genfiles.com/articles/orphans-guardians/

For most of history an orphan was a fatherless child, irrespective of whether the mother was living. A child living with his mother and stepfather was an orphan in the eyes of the courts and the law. …

… Some children had their guardians determined by their father before his death. A father could appoint a guardian for his minor children in his will, although it is relatively unusual to find a will that explicitly does so. (A will could also eliminate the need for a guardian by declaring a minor child to be “free”, an even rarer occurrence.) On the other hand, many wills make the implicit assumption that the mother would act as the guardian by leaving a life estate to the widow, with possession to the child at majority. In effect, this made the mother the guardian by eliminating, or at least reducing, the need for a separate financial overseer of the child’s interest. …

Blackstone devotes an entire chapter to the subject of guardianship, covering several details not addressed above. See Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), Book I, Chapter 17: “Of Guardian and Ward”.

Several of the earliest laws of Virginia dealt with orphans, their guardians, and estates. See William Waller Hening, Statutes at Large…, 1:261 (1643), 1:269-70 (1642), 1:416-7 (1656), 1: 443 (1657), 2:93-6 (1662), and 2:295-6 (1672). Largely restated in the legislature’s consolidations of 1705 [Hening 3:pp375], these statutes remained essentially unchanged through the end of the 18th century.


In other words, if the child had a living mother who had not remarried, there would be no reason for a curator or curatrix.

If Elizabeth was "curatrix in loco matris" or some such statement, that might account for it (including the peculiar disagreement in cases). Can't read the damn document, so can't verify.

One more time, Elizabeth is referenced in Latin as "matri et curatrici" meaning "mother and curatrix." So, mother (biological mother) is explicitly written but in the Latin form. It doesn't say "curatrix in loco matris"! Sorry! Elizabeth was the biological mother!

There is not enough evidence to say so, KM. I also notice you have changed your opinion from your original request to show Mary Tattershall as the mother on Geni. What changed your mind?



https://genfiles.com/articles/colonial-legal-terminology/

Generally, “cousin” referred to a nephew or niece (often including nephews-in-law or nieces in-law). In the broadest sense, it could mean any familial relationship, blood or otherwise, except for first-degree relationships.

Maybe translating the actual probate material in the will of Thomas Yate and realizing that it does refer to Elizabeth as "mother" of the two minor Yate children. Unless if you're just blind or dense, you cannot dismiss that fact.

A translation/ transcription would be nice, as well as any follow up records, which surely must have existed at one time. Perhaps a genealogist in England who could examine records in person could be sought.

Once again, though, the Latin case is not nominative, but either genitive or dative. So what *is* the nominative referent? Are you able to determine that? (I'm not even going to *try* to decipher an umpteenth-hand faded-out blurred-out broken-text scan of a scan of a scan of a photocopy!)

Erica, one more time, Elizabeth is referenced in Latin as "matri et curatrici" meaning "mother and curatrix." So, mother (biological mother) is explicitly written but in the Latin form. It doesn't say "curatrix in loco matris"! Sorry, but Elizabeth was the biological mother of George Yate!

Why on earth would you need an English genealogist to tell you exactly what I just did for the third time?

How well do YOU know Latin, KM? I had four years of it in high school and I know the difference between nominative and genitive/dative cases. But apparently you do not. You cannot even tell us what the referent is - and there obviously IS one.

I made a Wild Ass Guess because I cannot read the shredded mess that Ancestry provides. No one has provided a cleaner transcript - not Erica, not you - no one.

You keep yelling "I nave proof, proof" - but *you never provide such proofs*. No quotes, no excerpts, no links, no nothing, not so much as volume and page numbers. Whereas I have gone out of my way to try to provide as explicit references as I possibly can - you don't want to know how long it took me to pin down that reference to George Yate on the jury for the case of Ba(c)ker's boat! Ugh! The Maryland State Archives can be decidedly user-hostile at the best of times, and at the worst...!

Well Maven, why don't you travel to the Maryland State Archives and spend some time doing your own research there in person? I have no idea where in the United States you reside or are currently living. The staff there are fairly pleasant and very knowledgeable. I traveled quite a distance and spent a few days there myself before the pandemic, basically going through land records and reviewing previous publications by Maryland genealogists who looked into the Yate, Wells, Stockett, and White families.

As far as the probate material in the will of Thomas Yate, it’s easily distinguishable if you look two lines up from the bottom on the left hand side. It says, “Elizabeth Yate matri et curatrici . . . “

The Latin is easily translated to English as “mother and curatrix.” You don't even need one year of Latin in high school or college to figure that out. I cannot help you if you have bad eye sight or a terrible computer to view it on. However, that’s the explicit language in the additional probate material.

Don't say I haven't helped you or Erica out in this discussion thread, because I have given you both a lot of accurate and verifiable information.

I think that says it all!

There's still an implied (or written but illegible) "of" or "to" involved. (Wills and probates being what they are, dative "to" is somewhat more likely, but the rest is completely indecipherable.)

I can't make any more of it than that, and "curatrici" is itself almost illegible.

But even this sheds no light whatsoever on who, exactly, Elizabeth Yate was before she married John Yate, and it's no good pretending that it does.

It makes no sense for a mother to be the curatrix of a child. She’s already a guardian.

https://www.layroots.com/naming-guardians-as-a-single-parent/

The answer generally is that if parent one dies while there are still minor children, parent two has the guardianship rights to their kids, unless they’ve lost them, unless they’ve lost parenting rights for whatever reason, but generally the second parent is going to have the right to look after their kids. It doesn’t matter if you have named guardians for them, they still have that right.

If a woman was mentioned to be just 'curatrici' (curatrix), then she was most likely only a legal guardian and possible widow of the minor children’s father. However, since 'matri' (mother) is used in conjunction with it, you can't automatically jump to the conclusion that Elizabeth was a stepmother of the two minor Yate children.

I'm pff this Crazy Train too. Bye.

I see some corrections to Geni family trees in the near future!

So Erica, do you think Elizabeth was or wasn't actually Mary Tattershall? And if you think she wasn't Mary Tattershall, do you believe Elizabeth in the probate material was just a stepmother and guardian?

Showing 61-76 of 76 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion