It has always been possible to leave personal estate to whomever one wished, the confusion with illegitimate offspring is they had no automatic right to inherit. This means that anything left had to be specifically left to them as with other people who were not blood relations. Cheers Guy Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > > My understanding is that at least up to the 18th century and probably > also the 19th, it was impossible to leave anything to an illegitimate > offspring. So I suspect most of this will was invalid. It was, however, > possible to give them things in their lifetime, which is what an > ancestor of mine did in the early 17th century for a son born before he > married the mother. > > As late as 1880 a gt-gt-grandfather, a lawyer, thought is best to set up > a trust for his second family, so that the gift was to the trustees, not > to his offspring. Then in his will he considered the possibility that > this trust might be overturned so added in that his will would set up a > similar trust to replace it. Anyhow he succeeded in providing for his > second family. > -- http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells Transcripts, Parish Records, Calendar, Scaleable Map of Uk. Link to LDS website, Abbreviations, Returns of Owners of Lands etc. http://www.framland.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Worldwide Cemetery Links, Monumental Inscriptions, War Graves, etc.

In message of 28 Oct, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: > Takes your breath away, doesn't it! Perhaps a reason for continually > mentioning these three illegitimate sons is a way of disposing of > them, putting their parentage and status before the court so that > they will not be able to succeed in any challenge they might make > against the heirs already appointed. Does it say whether or not they > had been "adopted" in any way by the husbands of the women by whom > Robert Hesketh had begotten them? I don't somehow think they would be > mentioned if there was a) no property for them and that being so if > b) they posed no threat to the others involved in the inheritance. My understanding is that at least up to the 18th century and probably also the 19th, it was impossible to leave anything to an illegitimate offspring. So I suspect most of this will was invalid. It was, however, possible to give them things in their lifetime, which is what an ancestor of mine did in the early 17th century for a son born before he married the mother. As late as 1880 a gt-gt-grandfather, a lawyer, thought is best to set up a trust for his second family, so that the gift was to the trustees, not to his offspring. Then in his will he considered the possibility that this trust might be overturned so added in that his will would set up a similar trust to replace it. Anyhow he succeeded in providing for his second family. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

<<Any ideas on what those references to these apparently illegitimate heirs might be and why they are always mentioned before anybody else?>> Hello again, Alejandro. What a fascinating story! Robert Hesketh must have been a very unusual man. He must have had considerable local notoriety, and someone somewhere must surely have written about him - I'd love to know more. As to your question, it might make it all less puzzling to remember that an IPM wasn't a document created by Robert Hesketh himself, or by any of his family or heirs. It was the record of an official investigation into the property he owned at his death, and who it descended to. Investigations of this sort were carried out whenever someone died who was a Tenant-in-Chief, ie whose land was held directly from the king. Certain financial benefits accrued to the king whenever one of his tenants-in-chief died, so when that happened royal officials would hold an Inquisition post Mortem (ie an investigation after death), to find out just what the man had held and what payments or other benefits were owed to the king. So what the IPM of Robert Hesketh is doing is listing all his assets and then explaining how owned them, who they passed to, and why. I infer from the bits of the IPM which you quoted that Hesketh divided his lands into at least 4 portions, probably 5. Four of them he intended to go to his illegitimate children by his four mistresses. The first portion went to the children of Anne Blundell and their male heirs (but in case they had no male heirs he specified who should then inherit - which was the children of his other mistresses, in succession, and if they also didn't have male heirs, then to various members of his legitimate family, and finally the bastard Robert 3). [This, by the way, is an entail] I suspect the next 3 portions went to the children of one of the 3 other mistresses (but in each case he no doubt provided that if they had no male heirs then the properties would go to the children of the other mistresses in turn, then to his legitimate family etc etc). For each of these 4 portions there was presumably a deed similar to the one you quote from (or maybe they were all dealt with in the same deed). The fifth portion would have been the lands he wished to go to his legitimate family (and this may well have been the lion's share). There may have been no deed dealing with them, because he dealt with those properties in his will. Or it may be that even his will doesn't mention them, because if it didn't then the law of inheritance would operate to pass them to his heir (subject to his third wife's dower), and that was exactly what he wanted to happen. Conversely, the will wouldn't have mentioned the properties included in the 4 portions going to the illegitimate children, because when he signed the deeds creating the entails in their favour he removed his ability to leave them under his will - he had already given them away (by transferring ownership to the trustees, and reducing his own interest to just a life tenancy, so that the properties transferred to the bastards automatically on his death). The IPM would have dealt with each of these parts of his estate in turn, in each case setting out the terms of the relevant deed or the will or the fact that they descended to his lawful heirs under the laws of inheritance. It may have just been accident that they listed the illegitimate children's portions first, rather than the main part of his estate which descended to his legitimate family - or they may have been following some system which dictated the order (since the legitimate family's portion was a residuary one - ie it was everything not given to the bastards - it may have made sense to list the other four portions first). A chunk of the IPM seems to be a quote from the text of the Deed(s) which established the entails - here of course we do see wording created by Hesketh himself, but it has to remembered that in that Deed he mentions his illegitimate children before his legitimate family because the purpose of the Deed is to entail those portions of his estate which he wishes to pass to his bastards - the legitmate family's portions were to be dealt with in other documents. The above is in part something of a guess, since I haven't seen all the documents, but I hope that if you re-read them in the light of the above they'll make more sense. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

This is very confusing, don't people over there just buy and sell land? Ruth At 3:30 PM +0100 10/28/04, Tompkins, M.L wrote: ><<Personal estate used to mean movable items, not land. So in the days >when the only significant wealth was land, which was "real estate", this >would not have been part of personal estate and could not have been left.>> > > >I often see statements to the effect that land could not be devised by >will, and they always puzzle me, because they are simply not correct. Or >at least not very correct - as always, the situation was complex, and the >law changed over time. However it is true to say that at most times in >modern English history most land could be devised by will. > >It all depends on the kind of land in question. -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT

Takes your breath away, doesn't it! Perhaps a reason for continually mentioning these three illegitimate sons is a way of disposing of them, putting their parentage and status before the court so that they will not be able to succeed in any challenge they might make against the heirs already appointed. Does it say whether or not they had been "adopted" in any way by the husbands of the women by whom Robert Hesketh had begotten them? I don't somehow think they would be mentioned if there was a) no property for them and that being so if b) they posed no threat to the others involved in the inheritance. That, I think, is all I could possibly suggest or add. I shall be very interested to see what others make of this. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: <AMilb36287@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:12 AM Subject: [OEL] Baffled by Inq. Post Mortem (long) > In his will dated September 1620, Robert Hesketh of Rufford, Lancs., gives > his third wife Jane some real estate. He also mentions a daughter from his first > marriage to Mary Stanley, then Cuthbert, a son from his third marriage (i.e. > to Jane) and my ancestor, and "three daughters of my wife Jane" who are > believed to have been his, since Jane was his long-time mistress while being married > to her first husband and Robert to his second wife, Blanche Twyford. Finally, > he mentions a grandson of his, from a son from his first marriage. > > I know he had several other sons and daughters from his first marriage, > including his eldest son and heir, Thomas, and an illegitimate son with Jane, born > before they married. Since this son's name was also Robert, I'll call him > Robert 3, to differentiate him from Robert 2, his second son from his first wife, > who finally became his heir since Thomas, the elder son, died childless. > > The big surprise came when I read his Inquisition Post Mortem, taken at > Chorley in April 1623 (Robert died 7 Nov. 1620). Both the will and the IPM are > printed in publications by the Chetham and Record Societies respectively, I > haven't seen the originals nor transcribed anything. > > The IPM starts by listing the gentlemen who appeared before the escheator, > and goes on to list almost two pages of the manors Robert Hesketh was seised in > fee of. Then comes the surprising part: > > "So seised, by deed dated 27 July, 18 James [1620], shown > to the Jurors, he enfeoffed thereof Richard Shuttleworth, > Thomas Stanley, and Hugh Hesketh, Esqs., and Edward > Standishe, gentleman, to hold to them, their heirs, and as- > signs, to the use successively (1) of Robert Hesketh (named in > the writ) and his heirs male by Anne Blundell (then and still > the wife of Robert Blundell, Esq.), (2) to the use of himself and > his heirs male by Ellen Gerrard (then and still the wife of > Thomas Gerrard, of Ince, in Makerfield, Esq.), (3) and of him- > self and his heirs male by Anne Worthington (then the wife > of Thomas Worthington, of Crosley, gentleman); ..." > > This is the first indication I've seen of other sons of Robert's, who appear > to have been conceived from three married women... These are obviously not his > wives... > > The text of the IPM continues after the semicolon, mentioning what Jane, the > third wife, who by then had remarried, got, "in the name and in full > recompense of her jointure and dower in all the premises aforesaid; and after her > decease, > then as well of all the premises so limited to her use as of all > the residue of the premises immediately after the death of > Robert Hesketh, without any heir male by Anne Blundell > Ellen Gerrard, and Anne Worthington, or any of them, to > the use of Thomas Hesketh, son and then heir apparent of > the said Robert, and his assigns for life without impeachment > of waste;..." > > What I really don't understand is why are the sons from these three married > women so prominently mentioned, at the very beginning, even before all the > "rightful" heirs - i.e. Jane, his wife, and then once again, before mentioning > his legitimate elder son and heir, Thomas. > > The IPM continues with the remaining sons - Robert 2, Henry, and George, then > Cuthbert, then another Robert, son of a younger son John, then Robert 3 the > bastard (identified as such), and then Hugh Hesketh, a cousin. Finally, > > "...and, lastly, to the > use of the right heirs of Robert Hesketh (named in the writ) > for ever, as by an Indenture tripartite, dated 26 July, > 18 James [1620], and made between Robert Hesketh of the 1st > part, Richard Shuttleworth and Thomas Stanley of the 2nd > part, and Hugh Hesketh and Edward Standish of the 3rd > part, shown to the Jurors in evidence, appears. By virtue of > which Feoffment and Indenture tripartite, and by force of > the Statute of Uses, Robert Hesketh was seised of all the > premises aforesaid in fee tail, viz. to himself and his heirs > male by Anne Blundell, with remainder and remainders > thereof as required by law." > > Three sections with similar structure follow, referring to other manors. All > mention first the male heirs by the three married women, and then one of his > legitimate sons or the bastard Robert 3. > > The IPM finishes with a list of whom all those manors are held of and their > annual worth. At the very end it mentions all the legitimate sons and bastard > Robert 3, and the premises each of them was occupying at the time of the > inquisition. There is no mention or reference to the sons from the three married > women. > > Any ideas on what those references to these apparently illegitimate heirs > might be and why they are always mentioned befpre anybody else? As I said, I'm > totally baffled. If someone wants to see the full text of the IPM, I have it in > a Word document. > > Thanks you very much, > > Alejandro Milberg > Boston, MA > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

In his will dated September 1620, Robert Hesketh of Rufford, Lancs., gives his third wife Jane some real estate. He also mentions a daughter from his first marriage to Mary Stanley, then Cuthbert, a son from his third marriage (i.e. to Jane) and my ancestor, and "three daughters of my wife Jane" who are believed to have been his, since Jane was his long-time mistress while being married to her first husband and Robert to his second wife, Blanche Twyford. Finally, he mentions a grandson of his, from a son from his first marriage. I know he had several other sons and daughters from his first marriage, including his eldest son and heir, Thomas, and an illegitimate son with Jane, born before they married. Since this son's name was also Robert, I'll call him Robert 3, to differentiate him from Robert 2, his second son from his first wife, who finally became his heir since Thomas, the elder son, died childless. The big surprise came when I read his Inquisition Post Mortem, taken at Chorley in April 1623 (Robert died 7 Nov. 1620). Both the will and the IPM are printed in publications by the Chetham and Record Societies respectively, I haven't seen the originals nor transcribed anything. The IPM starts by listing the gentlemen who appeared before the escheator, and goes on to list almost two pages of the manors Robert Hesketh was seised in fee of. Then comes the surprising part: "So seised, by deed dated 27 July, 18 James [1620], shown to the Jurors, he enfeoffed thereof Richard Shuttleworth, Thomas Stanley, and Hugh Hesketh, Esqs., and Edward Standishe, gentleman, to hold to them, their heirs, and as- signs, to the use successively (1) of Robert Hesketh (named in the writ) and his heirs male by Anne Blundell (then and still the wife of Robert Blundell, Esq.), (2) to the use of himself and his heirs male by Ellen Gerrard (then and still the wife of Thomas Gerrard, of Ince, in Makerfield, Esq.), (3) and of him- self and his heirs male by Anne Worthington (then the wife of Thomas Worthington, of Crosley, gentleman); ..." This is the first indication I've seen of other sons of Robert's, who appear to have been conceived from three married women... These are obviously not his wives... The text of the IPM continues after the semicolon, mentioning what Jane, the third wife, who by then had remarried, got, "in the name and in full recompense of her jointure and dower in all the premises aforesaid; and after her decease, then as well of all the premises so limited to her use as of all the residue of the premises immediately after the death of Robert Hesketh, without any heir male by Anne Blundell Ellen Gerrard, and Anne Worthington, or any of them, to the use of Thomas Hesketh, son and then heir apparent of the said Robert, and his assigns for life without impeachment of waste;..." What I really don't understand is why are the sons from these three married women so prominently mentioned, at the very beginning, even before all the "rightful" heirs - i.e. Jane, his wife, and then once again, before mentioning his legitimate elder son and heir, Thomas. The IPM continues with the remaining sons - Robert 2, Henry, and George, then Cuthbert, then another Robert, son of a younger son John, then Robert 3 the bastard (identified as such), and then Hugh Hesketh, a cousin. Finally, "...and, lastly, to the use of the right heirs of Robert Hesketh (named in the writ) for ever, as by an Indenture tripartite, dated 26 July, 18 James [1620], and made between Robert Hesketh of the 1st part, Richard Shuttleworth and Thomas Stanley of the 2nd part, and Hugh Hesketh and Edward Standish of the 3rd part, shown to the Jurors in evidence, appears. By virtue of which Feoffment and Indenture tripartite, and by force of the Statute of Uses, Robert Hesketh was seised of all the premises aforesaid in fee tail, viz. to himself and his heirs male by Anne Blundell, with remainder and remainders thereof as required by law." Three sections with similar structure follow, referring to other manors. All mention first the male heirs by the three married women, and then one of his legitimate sons or the bastard Robert 3. The IPM finishes with a list of whom all those manors are held of and their annual worth. At the very end it mentions all the legitimate sons and bastard Robert 3, and the premises each of them was occupying at the time of the inquisition. There is no mention or reference to the sons from the three married women. Any ideas on what those references to these apparently illegitimate heirs might be and why they are always mentioned befpre anybody else? As I said, I'm totally baffled. If someone wants to see the full text of the IPM, I have it in a Word document. Thanks you very much, Alejandro Milberg Boston, MA

Your teaset sounds like mine - pink lustre bone china made in Stoke on Trent in the early 19th century. Not marked, so I don't know exactly where it was made. I think it would have been a very popular wedding present. Your Gram was sensible not to split it up. I don't use mine - I'd be terrified to chip it, particularly the teapot. But it is on display. My husband made a special shelf for it, and I'm looking at it now. ... Elizabeth Elizabeth, I, too, have an inherited teaset. I don't know whether it is valuable or not, it is "pink lustre," whatever that means. It is very pretty and I never use it which really seems a shame for what is the use of having something that is just packed away and never seen or used? Some of my Gram's cousins wanted it split up but Gram said it should stay together and she gave it to me before she died to make sure I got it. Ruth At 10:53 AM +0100 10/26/04, Elizabeth Atherton wrote: > I feel lucky to have my heirloom teaset - although not valuable in monetary >terms, its family history makes it priceless to me. I don't have a daughter >to leave it to, but luckily my (female) cousin has a daughter who also has a >daughter, so I can see the tradition carrying on. And the teaset is intact. > My husband's great grandmother was Norwegian and had some beautiful >Norwegian silver tableware which was split and shared between female >descendants. Now each great great grandaughter has one spoon. >.. Elizabeth Atherton -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

>"tibi penitus int[er]dicta lib[er]e & licite possis ac valeas" > >What precedes and follows it, is this: > >tame[n] quor[um]cu[m]q[ue] bonor[um] Immobiliu[m] & p[re]c[i]osoru[m] >mobiliu[m] ip[s]ius com[m]endati b[e]n[e]ficii tibi penitus int[er]dicta >lib[er]e & licite possis Ac valeas >nevertheless, of whatsoever immoveable goods and valuable moveable goods >of that commended benefice, you may and can freely and lawfully use >interdicts, > nevertheless, (as to) goods of whatever kind immoveable and valuable of the aforesaid handed over benefice, it is strictly forbidden that you shall possess or control them freely and lawfully (so keep your sticky paws off the best stuff) >12] auct[oritat]e Ap[o]stol[i]ca tenore p[rese]ntiu[m] de sp[eci]alis >dono gr[aci]e dispensamus Non obstantib[us] constituc[i]onib[us] & >ordinac[i]onib[us] ap[osto]lic[is] >by the tenor of these presents, We grant dispensation by the gift of >special grace and by virtue of our Apostolic authority, notwithstanding >Apostolic decrees and ordinances; and for the good memory > >Thanks a lot, Art Lengkeek > > > > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

>> I like that - and the fact that it worked, with the veil surviving. >> (What happened if the heiress was a little girl who would have used it >> for dressing up, or caught it on nails etc?) > >This happened a few years ago. But you have to remember that minors >canot be legally given anything as they cannot sign a receipt. So any >formal gifts have to be given to their parent or guardian. But Daddy, Granny left it to ME. I just wanted to look at it, Daddy, really, just for a minute.... oops!' -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Good Evening Again - Some one has to be responsible I suppose in times of need!? Take Care - Out There Roy & June Cox Roy.cox@btinternet.com -----Original Message----- From: norman.lee1 [mailto:norman.lee1@virgin.net] Sent: 26 October 2004 08:53 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] thirds - the other two Dear All Having looked at a number of wills and inventories of women I have come to the conclusion that women have different agenda to men when leaving their goods and possessions. They seem to leave a lot of clothing specified to particular women and they sometimes even leave clothing to men. Some of this must be governed by what they have at their own personal disposal and it becomes clear that they are more likely to have items of clothing rather than anything else. The next likely item would be one of household implements of one sort or another and pots or china would come into that category. I wonder if the rhyme and tradition of a bride wearing something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue has anything to do with an accepted custom of passing on personal goods through the generations. I have the feeling that women wish to pass on part of themselves, something by which to be remembered by those close to them. Personally speaking, I value anything owned by my own mother and I should think she would have felt the same and so that would set a tradition of valued possessions being passed by custom and inclination, a sort of token of love and affection through the generations. What do the rest of you think? Men have had to be more practical in many ways and have different goods at their disposal although you can become very attached to a piece of land or a house. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Atherton" <elizabeth.atherton@biscituk.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] thirds - the other two > I have an early 19th century tea-set which has been passed down to the > eldest grand-daughter - so far by custom rather than by will, although I > have mentioned it in my will. It was a wedding present to my 3x great > grandmother who died in 1820. I am the sixth owner. ... Elizabeth Atherton > > > > I was delighted to find only a few years ago that an ancestress of mine had > left something (a wedding > veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest daughter of > the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her will. I wonder if such > female-entails are in any way common? > > And you may be glad to hear that the veil is still in use, is now in > about the sixth generation of ownership and has adorned over 20 brides, > including, I was surprised to find, my mother. > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Elizabeth, I, too, have an inherited teaset. I don't know whether it is valuable or not, it is "pink lustre," whatever that means. It is very pretty and I never use it which really seems a shame for what is the use of having something that is just packed away and never seen or used? Some of my Gram's cousins wanted it split up but Gram said it should stay together and she gave it to me before she died to make sure I got it. Ruth At 10:53 AM +0100 10/26/04, Elizabeth Atherton wrote: > I feel lucky to have my heirloom teaset - although not valuable in monetary >terms, its family history makes it priceless to me. I don't have a daughter >to leave it to, but luckily my (female) cousin has a daughter who also has a >daughter, so I can see the tradition carrying on. And the teaset is intact. > My husband's great grandmother was Norwegian and had some beautiful >Norwegian silver tableware which was split and shared between female >descendants. Now each great great grandaughter has one spoon. >.. Elizabeth Atherton -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT

A Very Good Day to All - Sitting on the side at the moment but Elizabeth's family anecdote is so apt all too often - or is it? I have exactly the same type of things that I would like to pass on to my family but when there is little interest what does one do? Sorry if this is getting a bit OFF subject but my library collection of Genealogical and Historical books and records it seems, will be consigned to a records office somewhere which may or may not be the best place. One set of records at a library I have explored and re-indexed has since become SO dilapidated through miss-handling. Some are missing and the many hard years of research by a parish clerk almost come to naught. Ah! Well - such is life I suppose - Still waiting for me Op! But the recent flurry of "Blacks & Thirds Etc;" has bucked me up no end - Thank you all very much for the mass of information. Kind Regards as usual - Roy & June Cox www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Atherton [mailto:elizabeth.atherton@biscituk.com] Sent: 26 October 2004 10:53 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] thirds - the other two I feel lucky to have my heirloom teaset - although not valuable in monetary terms, its family history makes it priceless to me. I don't have a daughter to leave it to, but luckily my (female) cousin has a daughter who also has a daughter, so I can see the tradition carrying on. And the teaset is intact. My husband's great grandmother was Norwegian and had some beautiful Norwegian silver tableware which was split and shared between female descendants. Now each great great grandaughter has one spoon. .. Elizabeth Atherton ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Hi Chris, Thank you for the very interesting and informative web site. If anyone missed the url - http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet Cheers, Liz in Melbourne Quoting Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>: > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > I will have to look at the book again - but to have the name Collins, he > > has to be the result of a marriage by a female Bennett, which messes up > > a proper male entail > > That point is also addressed in the page I posted a link to. > > Chris Phillips >

I feel lucky to have my heirloom teaset - although not valuable in monetary terms, its family history makes it priceless to me. I don't have a daughter to leave it to, but luckily my (female) cousin has a daughter who also has a daughter, so I can see the tradition carrying on. And the teaset is intact. My husband's great grandmother was Norwegian and had some beautiful Norwegian silver tableware which was split and shared between female descendants. Now each great great grandaughter has one spoon. .. Elizabeth Atherton

In message of 26 Oct, Eve McLaughlin <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In message <002401c4ba2e$86bfdf80$63dbae51@lovegrove>, Sandra Lovegrove > <lovegrove@one-name.org> writes > >A couple of comments on recent contributions: > > > >(1) Mr.Collins in 'Pride and Prejudice' would have been the next > >eligible beneficiary under a "tail male" entail: the most common sort > >of arrangement. > tail male has to go THROUGH males. The next male heir would be a son or > grandson from an uncle or even great uncle of Mr Bennett, not from his > sister's son. That is not disputed. But I have not seen any will (not that I have seen many) that explicitly says they are setting up an entail, even of the form tail-male, using those words. Much more common the wills I have seen set up an implicit trust which is then described as a "tail-male entail". Have you seen many wills that use the word "entail" without further definition? Of course in medieval times, the entail was according to the laws of feudal inheritance so did not appear in the wills. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

In message of 26 Oct, Eve McLaughlin <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> wrote: > I had written: > > an ancestress of mine had left something (a wedding > > veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest > > daughter of the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her > > will. > > I like that - and the fact that it worked, with the veil surviving. > (What happened if the heiress was a little girl who would have used it > for dressing up, or caught it on nails etc?) This happened a few years ago. But you have to remember that minors canot be legally given anything as they cannot sign a receipt. So any formal gifts have to be given to their parent or guardian. The veil was thus preserved from any temptation and indeed released for the weddings of two cousins of hers while the minority was in progress. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Dear All Having looked at a number of wills and inventories of women I have come to the conclusion that women have different agenda to men when leaving their goods and possessions. They seem to leave a lot of clothing specified to particular women and they sometimes even leave clothing to men. Some of this must be governed by what they have at their own personal disposal and it becomes clear that they are more likely to have items of clothing rather than anything else. The next likely item would be one of household implements of one sort or another and pots or china would come into that category. I wonder if the rhyme and tradition of a bride wearing something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue has anything to do with an accepted custom of passing on personal goods through the generations. I have the feeling that women wish to pass on part of themselves, something by which to be remembered by those close to them. Personally speaking, I value anything owned by my own mother and I should think she would have felt the same and so that would set a tradition of valued possessions being passed by custom and inclination, a sort of token of love and affection through the generations. What do the rest of you think? Men have had to be more practical in many ways and have different goods at their disposal although you can become very attached to a piece of land or a house. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Atherton" <elizabeth.atherton@biscituk.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] thirds - the other two > I have an early 19th century tea-set which has been passed down to the > eldest grand-daughter - so far by custom rather than by will, although I > have mentioned it in my will. It was a wedding present to my 3x great > grandmother who died in 1820. I am the sixth owner. ... Elizabeth Atherton > > > > I was delighted to find only a few years ago that an ancestress of mine had > left something (a wedding > veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest daughter of > the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her will. I wonder if such > female-entails are in any way common? > > And you may be glad to hear that the veil is still in use, is now in > about the sixth generation of ownership and has adorned over 20 brides, > including, I was surprised to find, my mother. > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

Eve McLaughlin wrote: > I will have to look at the book again - but to have the name Collins, he > has to be the result of a marriage by a female Bennett, which messes up > a proper male entail That point is also addressed in the page I posted a link to. Chris Phillips

>To the best of my knowledge it remains a trust usually set up by a >will. So each will needs careful examination to see what the terms >actually were. a male entail is to the eldest son or next in male line of descent - and the current owner only holds a life rent on the property, and cannot vary the inheritance by next male heir unless the next male joins with him in barring the entail. A father and son might do this, a more distant heir is unlikely to do so. Some wills express a series of remainders, rather than an entail, even if they have a similar effect, by naming the next male to succeed if the son/s of the testator fail. This is not the same thing, because the testator owns the property he is disposing of, and just selects a series of potential heirs. This, thinking about it, is the only way a Collins could inherit, if a male heir was preferred over any female heirs. I am sure that his position as heir is referred to as by entail (which would be wrong) > Certainly earlier wills that I have seen were quite clear on >(a) the main line of beneficiaries and (b) what to do when or if that >main line failed. That's a remainder not an entail, as you point out. >If others cared to call this an entail, then so be it, >but the terms were those in the will. >a few years ago that an ancestress of mine had left something (a wedding >veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest daughter >of the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her will. I like that - and the fact that it worked, with the veil surviving. (What happened if the heiress was a little girl who would have used it for dressing up, or caught it on nails etc?) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

>As it points out, whatever Mr Collins was, he couldn't have been "a sister's >son", as he is called "a distant relation". I will have to look at the book again - but to have the name Collins, he has to be the result of a marriage by a female Bennett, which messes up a proper male entail -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society