Liliaeth (liliaeth) wrote,

Ok, I'm not a history buff, but I need some help from people who are.

Been reading AOQ's reviews of Buffy and had to respond to a particular post:

> More like William was still living with his mother, she wanted him out of the
> house and finally find himself a girl, remember? And if he did take her
> into his house, it's the Victorian age, it wouldn't be love, but
> obligation. Also; convenience, his mother did everything for him and he
> didn't need to do anything.

I know his type, leeching from mom, my brother is the type
> they're not good people.

Which is such utter and total crap, but what else are we used to by now from this guy.

So I responded with this:

I'd like to show you something that you don't seem to have a clue
about. At all.

Or, in case you're too lazy:

If a man die intestate, the widow, if there are children, is entitled
to one-third of the personality; if there are no children, to one-half:
the other is distributed among the next of kin, among whom the widow is
not counted. If there is no next of kin the moiety goes to the crown.

The husband can, of course, by will deprive a wife of all right
in the personality.

There's more very interesting bits of law in that same page. A son by
the way is counted amongst the next of kin, where the wife is not.

William had no obligation to take in his mother. The fact that he does
so is done because he loves his mother.

If her father or mother die intestate (i.e., without a will) she
takes an equal share with her brothers and sisters of the personal
property i.e., goods, chattels, moveables), but her eldest brother, if
she have one, and his children, even daughters, will take the real
property, (i.e., not personal property, but all other, as land, &c.),
as the heir-at-law; males and their issue being preferred to females;
if, however, she have sisters only, then all the sisters take the real
property equally. If she be an only child, she is entitled to all the
intestate real and personal property.

In other words, the house would have belonged, not to her, but to
William. He's after all the heir at law as oldest son. It's his house
that she's living in.

she's sick, he's the one taking care of her. Getting the doctor when
she needs medical care. Sure she felt trapped, which woman wouldn't in
that circumstance, being in many ways dependant on her son's kindness.

A right is granted in Magna Charta to a widow to remain forty days in
her husband's house after his death, provided she do not marry during
that time.

That's fourty days, not the rest of her life.

Sure her husband could have left her more in his will, but that's by
choice, not by law.

William as a dutiful son, was taking care of his sickly mother.
Helping her in her needs. She felt locked in a life where as a widow,
she had less rights than she would have had, had she not been married.

This is not a case where a son is taking advantage of his mother, quite
the contrary.

Want another site?

It goes a bit more into the unfairness of the legal treatment of women
in the Victorian age.

So let's see shall we, William most likely inherited the house, she has
money, sure, but he gets not just his third, but parts as next of kin.
If William does marry, his wife most likely will move in with them.
Unless William sets his mother up somewhere else, where she will not
have as easy access to medical care by say a celebrated doctor of his
time like Doctor Gull, who by the way was also the doctor serving the
royal family.
(Gull has also been claimed to have been Jack the Ripper, but that
hasn't been confirmed)
Can't give a reliable historical link unfortunately.

Do you want me to give more proof?
Don't have much time, but I do have access to google and other search
engines :-)

Don't try and compare the situation of a widow's son in the Victorian
age, with that of a present day mother and her son. Because like in
just about everything else you tend to say, you'll be wrong

And two last bits:

WILLIAM: Yet her smell, it doth linger, painting pictures in my mind.
Her eyes, balls of honey. Angel's harps her laugh. Oh, lark. Grant a
sign if crook'd be Cupid's shaft. Hark, the lark, her name it hath
spake. "Cecily" it discharges from twixt its wee beak.

MOTHER: (proud) Oh, William....

WILLIAM: It's just...scribbling.

MOTHER: Nonsense. It's magnificent. I wonder, though. This Cecily of
whom you write so often...

WILLIAM: (uncomfortable) Oh.

MOTHER: Would that be the Underwood's eldest girl?

WILLIAM: Uh, no, uh, no. I do not presume.

MOTHER: She's lovely. You shouldn't be alone. You need a woman in your

WILLIAM: I have a woman in my life.

MOTHER: But you ne? (giggles) Oh... (giggles)

WILLIAM: Well, do not mistake me. I still have hopes that one day there
will be an addition to this household, but I will always look after
you, mother. This, I promise.

(his mother starts coughing up blood)

WILLIAM: Should I send the coach for Doctor Gull?

MOTHER: I'll be all right. It's passed. Just sit with me a while, will

WILLIAM: Of course.

Does that sound like a son taking advantage of his mother to you?
Considering how twisted your mind is, it probably does

Or try reading this, what his mother says as a vampire isn't that he
took advantage of her, but that he was overconcerned for her. Too busy
taking care of her, to go look for a wife.

Now of course one of his buddies just had to respond, so I kinda need proof here to counteract his response. Any history buffs that can help me get the proof I need to do so?

Don Sample's response is here

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded