In a message dated 4/28/2007 3:11:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
carroll-request(a)rootsweb.com writes:
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:53:51 -0400
From: "Lura" <luraj(a)triad.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [CARROLL] VA Carrolls
To: <carroll(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <00a201c78951$3790a0d0$6401a8c0@lura2004>
Gayle,
Have you considered that perhaps Elizabeth Carroll sent her son to be
an apprentice to the shoe maker to learn a trade, but that she had
stayed in Ireland? That may be why she was alive, yet he was also
listed as an orphan. Unselfish mothers sometimes did this, because
they knew the children would have an opportunity for a better life.
Just an idea for thought.
Lura
----- Original Message -----
From: <BrigetCA(a)aol.com>
To: <carroll(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:25 AM
Subject: [CARROLL] VA Carrolls
:I have traced my Carroll family back to the 1700s in Alexandria,VA.
I ran
: into a wall when I was at the Library in Alexandria and found that
James
: Carroll had been orphaned even though his mother was listed as
living. At around
Also, weren't children most always considered "orphans" if they weren't
"of
age" even if the mother was still living - as the women had no real standing
legally, did they?
I've seen any number of incidences where they children were called
"orphans"
& either had "Guardian's" appointed to them or if maybe old enough,
they
chose a "Guardian" from either their Mothers or Father's family or a maybe
a
close family friend...yet the Mothers were still living......Sometimes it might
be that she married again & soon, as lots of times they "needed" the
protection of a man in that time frame - so the Guardian could even be a 2nd husband.
Don't know how this might have differed from state to state but us ladies
didn't fare too well in those days as separate individuals, it seems....
What's that about coming a long way, baby!?
Sarah
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.