From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 11/09/2019 02:01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   As you say, it was just standard wording.  And so far as the law at the   
   time went, a child born to a woman while she was married was presumed to   
   be her husband's child.  If Nathaniel had doubts about the illegitimacy   
   of John's son and wanted to bar him from inheriting the house, he would   
   have made this desire much clearer (even if the reason was not stated).   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   It really doesn't it makes sense for the "for want of heirs" to be   
   referring to Mary dying for want of heirs.  If she died, with or without   
   heirs, she couldn't inherit the bequest.   
      
   If Nathaniel's son John had a son who was still alive in 1753, then I   
   think Nathaniel was contemplating the possibility that both might   
   predecease Nathaniel's wife.  Maybe the grandson John was a sickly   
   child.  Maybe Nathaniel was dying during an epidemic and was concerned   
   other family members might succumb.  Or maybe he was just being   
   abundantly cautious over what was likely his most valuable asset.  If   
   John's wife had died or was obviously not going to bear any more   
   children, this might have strengthen Nathaniel's motivation for making   
   such a provision.   
      
   If it is John's death without heirs that Nathaniel is considering, but   
   if so, it must be some other person listed in the will besides Mary and   
   Nathaniel's wife.  However the only other person mentioned is a   
   granddaughter, Elizabeth Pott, and the will already addresses the   
   possibility that she might die young.  Unless we are to suppose a whole   
   section was omitted from the will which included a major bequest to   
   another otherwise unmentioned person, I think it must be John.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Bequests of a shilling were extremely common.  They were included to   
   stop a relative from challenging the will on the grounds that they were   
   omitted due to a clerical error or a momentary oversight on the part of   
   the testator.  The underlying motivation varies, but commonly it was   
   because they had already received their share of the inheritance,   
   whether as a marriage portion (another word for a dowry) or otherwise.   
      
      
   >> 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.)   
      
   I've taken another look and am pretty certain the first four letters are   
   'Pres' and the last three are 'eld'.  This clerk doesn't write his p's   
   with ascenders, but does give his f's quite pronounced loops, so I think   
   the fifth letter must be an 'f'.  The sixth letter seems to have been   
   overwritten: possibly an 'e' changed to an 'i'?   
      
   >> 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.)   
      
   If I were you, I'd investigate the possibility that she married a man   
   named Pott, had a daughter named Elizabeth (perhaps the only surviving   
   child), and had died by 1753.  Given her probable age at death, she may   
   well have died in childbirth.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)