HALSEY-L Archives

Archiver > HALSEY > 2000-09 > 0968456825


From:
Subject: [HALSEY] Halsey alias Chambers
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:47:05 EDT


Hi all,
The way it was explained to me by a fellow Halsey researcher, is that it
stems from the fact that in England prior to the 1500s (+/-), daughters were
not legally entitled to inherit family property. The reason for this law was
so that the family name would continue throughout the generations as the
holder of whatever properties existed -- passed down intact as an ongoing
symbol of power and position. You can just imagine what the manor and lands
would be after a few generations of dividing and dividing again among those
huge families!

If a man had no sons to pass his land and property to, his (probably eldest)
daughter was forced to find a prospective bridegroom (or, rather, one was
found for her) who would agree to change his name in order to receive the
inheritance. After the marriage had taken place, he legally assumed the
surname of his wife and her father. I'm not clear as to why the name now
appears as an alias, but it may have been added by a well-meaning early
family historian who was only trying to keep track of the name changes. It
doesn't appear the aliases were kept more than a few generations.

Maybe we shouldn't look too closely at the marriage of
Robert Halsey alias Chambers and Ellen Alley alias Cooke... 8-(

I'm sure someone else can explain this better, but this was the answer to my
own question many years ago!

LaRae

This thread: