From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   []   
   >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.   
      
   Yes, I guessed it might be. Seems odd today to include the disposition   
   of one's soul in the will, but it makes a sort of sense!   
   []   
   >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.   
      
   Yes, Nathaniel's son John was born around 1720. _His_ son (also John)   
   had been born 1746. The "lawfully begotten" initially sounds interesting   
   - suggests Nathaniel either thought (or knew!) his son put it around a   
   bit, or was afraid of pretenders - but was probably standard wording.   
   >   
   >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   
      
   See above. Grandson John had issue (in 1783), so would have been alive   
   at Nat's will writing. I'm _guessing_ the "for want of Heirs" refers to   
   daughter Mary, who had married 1753-4-27 (will dated 1753-5-21), though   
   there's confusion over surnames.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Very plausible!   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Yes, I'd thought the shilling - even in 1753! - seemed rather mean;   
   however, as she'd only married 5 weeks earlier, Ian's suggestion that   
   she'd already had a "marriage portion" sounds very plausible.   
   >   
   >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   
      
   Yes, I thought that.   
      
   >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.   
   No, I don't think John moved far - born and baptised (1720) in Leigh,   
   his son John born 1746 in Hanbury.   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Sounds right. (Though I read it as Prospect house.)   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Right. (They had at least one more child - Elizabetha, baptised 1722   
   [probably that a Latinised form of Elizabeth] - but I don't know if she   
   was still alive by 1753. Or, if she was, if married.)   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   Sounds plausible. Agreed, two living children with the same name is   
   unusual (though re-use of a name after early death is relatively common)   
   >   
   >Richard   
   Thanks both - John   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)