Log in

No account? Create an account
Mama Deb
.:::.:....... ..::...:
Mama Deb [userpic]
Damn Damn Damn

So, there I was, having a bite in a kosher pizza place with my mother when my cellphone rings.

It's the agency wheres I'd interviewed for a cooking job - THREE times. I'd called them yesterday and waited all day for a call back.

And the job is gone (probably because of the vacation - which they'd assured me would NOT be a problem). But they REALLY like me. And would like me to train for a counselor's job for a high functioning girl.

Hours 2PM-10:30PM.

Not that I'd mind such a job in general - except I really want to be a cook - but those are NOT possible hours. jonbaker and I would never see each other. There may, however, be another cook job in the offing.

I'm extremely disappointed, as you can guess. Damn.


Condolences. And many wishes of good luck finding another position!

Thank you. There are already possibilities.

Awww, man, that sucks rocks. *hugs*


I'll get a better job.

Aw, man. Sorry to hear this! But maybe it means it wasn't quite the right job after all - or maybe not quite the right time for it. Hope the new lead works out!

That's what I'm thinking. The right job will show up.


Thank you.

And mazel tov on the twins!

I'm so sorry. Good luck finding the next opportunity.

Thank you!

And mazel tov to you!

When you find the right job, you'll look back and say "Thank G-d!" I know it's easy for me to say now, but think back, isn't life always like that?

Hang in there, you'll find it soon!

I do believe that. Thank you!

Damn. I'm sorry.

yeah. But as people are saying, it's probably for the best.

Sorry to hear that. I really hope you can find something good.

I have faith I will. or strong hopes at least.

Oh, rats. I know you were really hoping for it.

I was. But who knows? I could get a job in a RESTAURANT.

Sorry to hear about the job disappointment. I'm sure something good will come up soon.

I hope so. Thank you!

Ouch. Much sympathy.

Thank you.


I'm disappointed in the agency. You had already been scheduled for a trial week with a specific start-date. The agency ought to have followed through properly. You did everything you were supposed to do. What would it be like working for people who would do this?

I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. May you soon be hired for a position specifically in your new field working for people who do not pull this crap.

I think you're probably right - it seems rather underhanded. *Sigh*

The right job will come.

Sorry to hear this. May you soon find an ideal position.

Amen. Thank you.

Victorian Inheritance from one of your old posts

Hi! I hope you don't mind my posting to your LJ. I found a comment you made somewhere else regarding British Victorian inheritance laws. You sounded as if you know what you're talking about, so I thought I'd ask you a question on the same topic and see if you can clue me in. In the other post (from last year) you said:

"It depends on many things, but generally speaking, gender was only a factor for entailed property. Actually, gender *and* birth order - if a property (yes, it means lands and income derived from the land) is entailed, only the oldest son can inherit it. If there are no sons, it goes through the male line. (See - Mr Collins of Pride and Prejudice.) This was to prevent the property from being divided up among many children and losing all value.

However, if there is no entailment *or* the heir breaks it (only the heir can do so), property can be left any way the owner pleases, although generally speaking, it would still go to the eldest son along with any titles.

Thus, a woman (at least an only daughter) could inherit an estate or major assets from her father. However, once she married, it would become her husband's property unless things were set aside for her children. Which is why there was a market for heiresses."

Here's my question, rather the situation in my work in progress. A woman, an only child, unmarried at the time of her father's death, inheritates a fortune that includes property and money. The time of her father's death is 1879. Her father distrusted the man she was engaged to. Could he leave all his property in trust to her and any sons they might have, with income from the trust going to her, which would then belong to her husband after marriage? Her husband dies, she remarries, has a son, then she dies, leaving the stepfather to bring up the son. The gist of all this is that I don't want the son to know everything belongs to him until he's in his twenties. I know it sounds like Dickens. The wrinkle is that the son is a serial killer, has hated his stepfather all his life, and murders the old man before he knows the situation with the property. Of course he gets away with it or there would be no book. I'm assuming that the trustee (lawyer?)would have to turn over everything to the son since he's 25. (He has nefarious plans on how to spend his inheritance once he learns about it.)Once that's done he can go on his wicked way, which makes the story.

I hope I didn't confuse you. If you don't know how the inheritance would work in this situation, do you have any suggestions where I could find the information?

Thank you for any help you can give me. Details, details!

I couldn't help reading your post. Are you a professional cook? I like to cook, but I could never do it in quantity, as in a restaurant. Cooking for two is my limit. I hope you had a good vacation.

Re: Victorian Inheritance from one of your old posts

When did she get married? This is important - in 1882, Parliament passed the Married Woman's Property Act, after which any property a woman inherited or earned in her own right belonged to her, and she retained her legal identity (until then, a husband and wife became one person - the husband.) I don't know if it changed things that happened before the act was passed.

I am confused. Who was the son's father? Her first or second husband? Does she marry her second husband while pregnant with her first husband's child? This is HIGHLY unlikely. Widows were expected to wait a decent length of time - at least until they were in second mourning, which would take a year - before marrying again. Anything else would cause Talk. Your timeline would suggest that - husband dies, she remarries, she has a son *but* you refer to the second husband as his stepfather. Again, that's highly unlikely. No respectable middle-class or higher widow would marry that soon.

However, yes. It was not unknown to leave property in trust for grandsons. It is impossible, btw, for the son to not know this. Primogeniture was the law of the land until 1915, and he'd know he was his parent's only heir - and as such, would come into his money upon reaching his majority - 21. There's simply no way around this.