From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 10/09/2019 17:47, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   > Nathaniel Blurton, signed 1753-5-21 (he died the same year):   
   >   
   > Item I give and bequeath to my Daughter Mary Blurton one Shilling   
   > Memorandam for want of Heirs of my son John Blurton I give it to   
   > My Daughter Mary Adderly and her Heirs for Ever  Item I   
   > give all my personal Estate to my wife for her life with al hous   
   > hold goods and Husbandryware and Cattle and Chattel Bonds Bills   
   > Item I give to Mary my Wife all my Lands for he life   
   >   
   > [I _think_ the word - repeated several times - is "Item" (used as a sort   
   > of bullet point here?); it looks like "Ham", but that makes even less   
   > sense.]   
      
   As Ian says, "item" is Latin for "also".  The first instruction in the   
   list begins "First and principally" – that's where he resigns his soul   
   to God.  This dated-sounding use of the word resign, which he spells   
   "resine", was not uncommon at that time.   
      
   > Any idea what it means, particularly "Memorandam"? (And yes, there's no   
   > punctuation. I've got a scan of the original. It can be found on   
   > FindMyPast for those with a subscription.)   
      
   Further up the will, Nathaniel has already bequeathed land to "my son   
   John and his heirs lawfully begotten at the death of his mother".  That   
   bequest suggests John was alive (or believe to be) at the time the will   
   was written.   
      
   The memorandum reads like a contingency regarding a bequest to John in   
   the event that John has died heirless at the point he would receive the   
   bequest.  The bequest must be the "it" in the sentence, though it's   
   uncommon for a legal document to say "it" when there's any scope for   
   ambiguity, as there is here.  However, it's worth noting this word has   
   been inserted interlineally in the will, and I think the clerk drafting   
   (or copying) the will got muddled, realised he'd omitted the latter half   
   the sentence, and saw that he could just about fix it by inserting an   
   "it" earlier on.   
      
   The problem is, the natural reading is to assume an "it" refers to the   
   previous bequest – here the shilling to Mary.  But that can't be.  It   
   has to be a bequest to John or it wouldn't make sense to consider the   
   possibility of his dying heirless.  And one wouldn't make contingencies   
   for a shilling – it would just pass into the residue of the estate.   
      
   Like most wills at this time, it was almost certainly made as Nathaniel   
   was dying, not withstanding his claim to "being in good health praise be   
   given to Almighty God", as it was written in May and proved that July.   
   If the bequest was an immediate one on Nathaniel's death, which he knew   
   to be imminent, it also wouldn't be necessary to make plans for the   
   eventuality that John died hierless before receiving the bequest.  This   
   could be explained if John were overseas and had not been heard of for   
   many year, but I'd expect a different wording if that were the case.   
      
   So the memorandum must pertain to a substantial bequest that John was to   
   receive at some future date.  Reading the will, it seems fairly clear to   
   me that this must be "my lands which I now live upon called by the name   
   Presfield house in the Parish of Hanbury" which John was to receive upon   
   the death of his mother.   
      
   To summarise: Presfield House was left to to his wife for life, and then   
   to his son John Blurton.  However, if John predeceased his mother   
   without leaving surviving legitimate descendants, then the house went to   
   his daughter Mary Adderly.   
      
   > FWIW: I know he _did_ have a son John, and a daughter Mary who did marry   
   > Mr. Adderley about five weeks before the will was written. I have no   
   > evidence that he had _another_ daughter Mary, though I have found the   
   > marriage (173x) of another Mary Blurton, who I think is someone else's   
   > daughter.   
      
   I wouldn't read anything into this.  Almost certainly the clerk simply   
   made an error in writing Mary Blurton.  I wouldn't use this to conclude   
   that Nathaniel had two daughters called Mary.  Such things did happen,   
   but they were very rare.  Clerical errors were far more common.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)