LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L Archives
Archiver > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS > 2006-09 > 1159616210
From:
Subject: Re: [LDR] Debt Books
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:36:50 EDT
In a message dated 9/30/2006 4:14:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
> Still doesn't explain why Samuel
> would be listed as orphan, unless he could be with a mother living?
>
That's the way it worked then after daddy died. Legally, the government had
interest in establishing who was the visible means of support for any child.
The absence of a father raised the issue. In apprentice bonds, the
identification of the boy (or, rarely, girl) as "orphan" did not by any means indicate
that the mother was deceased.
Related to this, of course, was the emphasis in bastardy cases on proving
paternity and/or otherwise getting someone to bear the burden of maintenance of
the little visitor, who was not wanted as a public charge. They were a lot
tougher on welfare mothers in those days.
In general, the word "orphan" can be applied to anyone who has lost even one
parent, father or mother.
John
This thread: