From: G6JPG@255soft.uk
In message , Richard Smith
writes:
>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).
Yes, since John Junior had been born 1746, Nathaniel would have been
quite aware of him by 1753! And, as you say, if any doubts, would have
been specific about him.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
True.
>
>If Nathaniel's son John had a son who was still alive in 1753, then I
He was - married 1772, child 1783.
>think Nathaniel was contemplating the possibility that both might
>predecease Nathaniel's wife. Maybe the grandson John was a sickly
No, see above.
>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
Seems most likely.
>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.
My mind is coming apart - or I thought it was! I, too, remembered
mention of a granddaughter, but couldn't see it in my transcript! On
re-examining the original, I'd missed two lines: "Item I give and
bequeath" starting two lines, two lines apart. So easily done!
[]
>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
Interesting to know; thanks. I didn't know such challenges were common.
(Though why not say "nothing"? he bequeaths "or else nothing" to the
granddaughter if she doesn't reach 21.)
>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.
>
(As she'd married five weeks earlier, that seems likeliest.)
[]
>> 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'?
I've looked too, and I think you're right. Those backward "e"s that are
so easily misread as an "o" ...
>
>>> 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
Hmm. Elizabetha Blurton baptised 1722-11-22 Leigh. On FindMyPast, the
only Staffordshire marriage of an Eliz* Blurton-plus-variants 1744 ±10
is one 1739-10-28 in Uttoxeter (6.0 miles' walk from Leigh so
plausible), but to Samuel Rawlins. So via another daughter perhaps ...
Hm, 10 Eliz* Pot* bap Staffordshire 1743±10:
1735 to Thomas & Anne, Yoxall (Nat & Mary married 1719 Leigh)
1744 to John & Elizabeth, Yoxall (14.7 miles' walk from Leigh)
same again
1739 to Hugh, Yoxall
same again
1742 to John & Alice, Colwich (11.0 miles)
1748 to John & Eliz, Yoxall
same again
1750 to John & Ann, Meerbrook (20.0 miles)
1750 to John & Ann, Rushton Spencer (20.9)
All of those would be under 21 in 1753.
Of course, the records I'm using are almost certainly incomplete.
I don't know why I'm pursuing this - they're not my ancestors! His
(Nathanel's) great-grandson (James Woolrich 1801-1869) married the
_sister_ (Harriet Leese 1804-1858) of my great-great-great-grandmother
(Catharine Leese 1801-1886). I guess I just like puzzles,
If anyone shares any of these ancestors, of course, do get in touch!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Ask not for whom the bell tolls; let the machine get it
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
