From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 12/09/2019 01:50, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
      
   >> Maybe the grandson John was a sickly   
   >   
   > No, see above.   
      
   The fact he lived well into adulthood doesn't mean he wasn't sickly as a   
   child.  I had a great aunt who was apparently almost constantly ill as a   
   child, often very severely, and not expected to live.  She died a decade   
   or two ago, aged 98.   
      
   >> 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.)   
      
   Let me quote Sir William Blackstone, whose 'Commentaries of the Laws of   
   England' was the definitive legal text book of the latter half of the   
   18th century, and is still regularly cited by the courts today:   
      
      "The Romans were also wont to set aside testaments as being   
   /inofficiosa/, deficient in natural duty, if they disinherited or   
   totally passed by (without assigning a true and sufficient reason) any   
   of the children of the testator.  But if the child had any legacy,   
   though ever so small, it was proof that the testator had not lost his   
   memory or his reason, which otherwise the law presumed; by was then   
   supposed to have acted for some substantial cause: and in such case no   
   /querela inofficiosi testasmenti/ was allowed.  Hence probably has   
   arised that groundless vulgar error, of the necessity of leaving the   
   heir a shilling or some other express legacy, in order to disinherit him   
   effecually; whereas the law of England makes no such constrained   
   suppositions of forgetfulness or insanity; and therefore though the heir   
   or next of kin be totally omitted, it admits no /querela inofficiosi/,   
   to set aside such a testament."   [Blackstone's /Commentaries/, II   
   502-3 (1825 edition).]   
      
   So it seems it was a misunderstanding.  It was commonly but wrongly   
   thought that the will could be overturned if a child was not given some   
   sort of bequest, however small.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)