Questions about VA-NC colonial wills #2

Question

My 2nd question involves an indenture made in North Carolina in 1766 by the widow reaffirming a gift made by her husband in his will.

If a widow (the 2nd wife) makes a statement in the indenture like:
 "....widow, for and in consideration of the love, goodwill and affection which I have to my well beloved son..."  in this court document....Is the assumption she is the actual mother or could she instead be the stepmother?

The son is clearly named with the first wife's last name and is supposed to be her son.  Would a 2nd wife (and step-mother) use words like "well-beloved son" or even name her son after the deceased wife's family?  Did they use the term "step-son" back then?

The first wife is Joan Howell who m. Samuel Alsobrook.  The son in question is a "son" named Howell. All along, this son has been assigned Joan as the mother  The indenture is made much later after Joan's death by 2nd wife/widow Mary___ whose surname is unknown. Possibly she became the mother of this boy Howell when he was still quite young and is the mother who raised him...if say, Joan Howell died in childbirth or early on.

Again, I'm trying to read between the lines on Howell's age to document his age  and in some fashion who his mother actually is.

Here is where Mary (2nd wife) makes the 1766 Halifax, NC indenture for her well-beloved son, p 369:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99DD-6DXP?cat=328729

And here is the original will stating Mary get the property until her death....which she restates in the above indenture.

https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/9061/images/004755346_00207

After I digest the the first two questions.....i will post the 3rd one. 

Comments

I would read those documents to say that Mary was the mother of Howell and that he was under 21 in 1763 when his father died and living with his mother, possibly as young as 13.  HIs mother would likely have written the deed of gift when he reached either age 18 or 21.  All speculation, but I think the "well-beloved son" means what it says.  "Son-in-law" was often used to mean what we call a step-son, and step-son used to mean what we call a son-in-law.  Samuel's will prevents Mary from re-marrying and thus his property going to a new spouse or other children.  She might have been preparing to remarry when she made the deed of gift.  That was also common at the time to keep a new husband and his children from benefitting from another man's estate.

---

Just had another thought that you should look for tax rolls for the 1760's that count tithables.  Generally males 16 and over were tithables so if you could find the Alsobrooks between 1760 and 1766 that might help.

---

Hi Kathie....thanks for the quick response.  These Alsobrooks are going to drive me nuts....but don't we all have at least one squirrely line?

I still have a hard time thinking this 2nd wife Mary would name her child Howell - after the 1st wife's family.  Would she have named the baby "Joan" had it been a girl.  I'm trying to put myself in that situation!!??

I suppose if Mary were also a Howell, it might make sense.  We don't know her maiden name and the  Godmother entry as Mary Alsobrook is in 1747 - so they were married by then. (Joan is supposedly dead by 1742)   William Howell only names two daughters, Joan and Elizabeth, so Mary wasn't Joan's sister.  I guess she "could be" a Howell if she were the daughter of one Joan's brothers - meaning Samuel remarried a niece-in-law.  I suppose that's no worse than marrying your deceased wife's sister????!! (Which is more common than I thought)

If Mary is also a Howell, it makes much sense....if she's just a "friend" of Joan's or didn't even know the woman, she's a lot more flexible than I would be.  I would be telling Samuel to "move on"...you're married to me now. hahahaha 

The earliest record I can find for Howell is witnessing the 1761 advance land purchase in Halifax as they prepare to leave the Sussex area.  Samuel sells out (Mary is mentioned in the Virginia sell-off) and buys in NC.  Mary is not mentioned in the NC purchase witnessed by David (a son), William (not sure but not a son) and Howell Alsobrook.  Another son Samuel jr died in 1758.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99DD-6D21?cat=328729

I will look into the tax records as you suggest.  I cringe at the thought of going through in detail, the many records from about 1742 or so (looking for any mention of Joan, Howell or Mary buried deep in a narrative) and up to about 1747 when Mary is already married.  I'll report anything I find.