Not quite the same but it annoys me when widows are described as"relict "ie" Relict of the late Joe Bloggs" as if they were of no value on their own.
Sorry if anyone named Joe Bloggs uses RootsChat.
You have raised some interesting questions, I don`t know the answers but looking forward to reading opinions on these matters .Viktoria.
That is possible because you are looking at old terms through modern eyes.
Don't forget this term stems from a time when marriage made a man and a woman one.
They were considered one entity no longer two separate people.
When the male part died the female part was relicta or left behind, this was far from of no value on their own but rather a gentle reminder to those who inherited by primogeniture that she had to be provided for.
There was also a very important situation if the woman had owned property before marriage, as that property would be taken as part of her husband’s estate (as they were one being) on marriage. However when her husband died she was then entitled to that property (unless it had been disposed off in her husbands lifetime).
So you see rather than the term looking at widows as if they were of no value on their own it was actually certifying that the widow had rights under law.
Cheers
Guy