From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:19:58 +0100, Richard Smith   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   That still applies now in case anyone is considering a more recent   
   event.   
      
   >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)