<joslake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >I have encountered the use of the word "friends" in a 1741 Sussex will, <snip> it appears that one of the executors might be a brother, and the wife of the other executor a sister of the subject of the will. <snip> Thus it may be reasonable to try to read some "special" meaning to the usage in the will ??????? Well, I'd hazard this generalization: bequests may have been more "formal" in addressing actual relationships than those clauses relating to roles such as executors and overseers of children, where "friend" tends to show up more often, even if there is an actual kinship. The distinction might have been that executorships and such were regarded as "favors", and the word "friend" may have been chosen to indicate in some way the appreciation of the decedent for the party accepting some discretionary responsibility. But this is probably best regarded as very much a highly personalized matter in the wording of any specific will. I'd say that you're best advised to imagine that "friend" does not exclude relatives. On the general matter of relationships: note also that in "next-of-kin" lists in estate rundowns, one sometimes sees such things as sons-in-law (and not their wives, a daughter of the decedent) named. One should not look at this as misdirection, but nice help in problem-solving. Not an exact science. But mostly one can unravel the specifics with the clues given, keeping a beaker of the sweat of one's brow handy. John

<joslake@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> I have encountered the use of the word "friends" in a 1741 Sussex will, <snip> it appears that one of the executors might be a brother, and the wife of the other executor a sister of the subject of the will. <snip> Thus it may be reasonable to try to read some "special" meaning to the usage in the will ???????<<< >>> John Lyon wrote: >>> [T]his is probably best regarded as very much a highly personalized matter in the wording of any specific will. I'd say that you're best advised to imagine that "friend" does not exclude relatives. ... On the general matter of relationships: note also that in "next-of-kin" lists in estate rundowns, one sometimes sees such things as sons-in-law (and not their wives, a daughter of the decedent) named. One should not look at this as misdirection, but nice help in problem-solving. ... Not an exact science. But mostly one can unravel the specifics with the clues given, keeping a beaker of the sweat of one's brow handy. ______________ Joe, I think John is "right on" on this (and he has the experience with the documents to give his thoughts much credence). Just as it's a good idea to try to understand the differences in written speech of different periods, it's also a good idea to keep in mind that many elements of speech and human nature seem to remain at least somewhat the same. A friend in 1741 in many ways probably was not much different than a friend is in 2008, and a friend presumably could be a relative (or spouse of a relative) in either era. I suppose it's also possible, though, that use of the word, "friend," in some colonial-era wills might have had some perceived (but perhaps idiocynratic) legalistic purpose. Dave K