Definition
A writ of historical English law by which a widow could compel her late husband's executors to deliver her rightful share — typically one-third — of his personal estate after payment of his debts and funeral expenses. The writ enforced a customary entitlement of the wife to a portion of the matrimonial goods, a right that existed independently of any testamentary provision made for her.
The Latin phrase translates roughly as "of the reasonable part of goods," and the writ's name reflects both its function and its grounding in the idea of equitable apportionment among surviving family members. In jurisdictions where the custom applied, the deceased's goods were notionally divided into three parts: one for the widow, one for the children, and one for the husband to dispose of by will (the so-called "dead man's part"). Where there were no children, the widow was entitled to half.
---
Common Confusion
RATIONABILI PARTE BONORUM is sometimes loosely grouped with dower as though the two were interchangeable widow's remedies. They are distinct. Dower concerned a widow's entitlement to a life interest in her husband's real property — land — and was enforced by the writ of dower. Rationabili parte bonorum addressed personal property (goods, chattels, moveables) and operated against the executors of the estate, not against holders of land. A researcher conflating the two will be looking in the wrong body of sources and the wrong class of historical records.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is almost exclusively of historical and ecclesiastical law significance. Several research traps exist for the unwary.
**Geographical reach is narrow.** The writ did not apply universally across England. It was operative only in those regions where the custom of reasonable part was recognized — principally in London, in Wales, and in the Province of York. The Province of Canterbury generally did not observe the custom, and testators there could freely dispose of their entire personal estate by will. Researchers tracing widow's claims must first establish which custom governed the relevant jurisdiction before assuming this writ was available.
**The custom was abolished in stages.** The custom of reasonable part had already fallen into disuse or been formally abolished in most of England by the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The Statute of Distributions (1670) and subsequent legislation reorganized the law of intestate succession and effectively supplanted the older customary entitlements. By the time Blackstone wrote, the writ was largely a historical artifact. Sources from different periods will therefore reflect entirely different legal landscapes: a document from Tudor England and one from Georgian England may both mention a widow's share of goods but operate under very different legal regimes.
**Ecclesiastical court jurisdiction.** Claims to a share of the deceased's personal estate frequently ran through the ecclesiastical courts rather than the common law courts, which means that the primary records — probate accounts, administration bonds, court act books — are ecclesiastical in origin. Researchers working in common law court records alone may miss the bulk of the relevant documentation. The writ of rationabili parte bonorum was a common law remedy, but the underlying substantive claim often had a parallel life in the church courts.
**The Fitzherbert reference.** Both Black's editions cite Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium for the form and function of the writ. That treatise (first printed 1534) is the standard historical authority on the English prerogative and common law writs and is the appropriate primary source for deeper research into this remedy's procedural mechanics.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and its second edition offer identical, brief accounts: the writ lay for the wife against the husband's executors to recover the third part of his goods after debts and funeral charges were satisfied, citing Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium at folio 122. The entries are consistent and accurate as far as they go, but they are thin. Neither edition situates the writ within the customary law framework that gave it meaning — the tripartite division of matrimonial goods — nor do they flag the critical geographical and temporal limitations on its operation. A researcher relying solely on Black's would not know that the writ was unavailable in much of England, that ecclesiastical courts ran parallel proceedings, or that the custom had been substantially abolished before the nineteenth century. The entries are useful as a starting point for identifying the writ's basic purpose but should be supplemented with historical sources on English ecclesiastical law and the law of personal property.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The writ was an English common law remedy with no direct American successor. The American colonies and early states developed their own statutory frameworks for spousal shares of personal estates — later known as the elective share or statutory share — which bear a functional resemblance but derive from different legal roots. Researchers should not assume continuity between rationabili parte bonorum and modern spousal rights in any American jurisdiction.
---