<<And how about the cloaks and gowns to be given to the poor to pray for him? Was this customary?>> It was very common to leave bequests to the poor, but it certainly wouldn't have been customary to ask for prayers in return - that marks him out as almost certainly a member of the Catholic minority. In 1620 no Protestant will would have asked for prayers to be said - in the anti-Catholic atmosphere of the times it was the equivalent of standing up in Congress and calling for 3 cheers for Osama bin Laden. The fact that he lived in Lancashire is significant - it was one of the few areas in Britain to have a substantial Catholic minority at that time. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

In message <13e.4752d2b.2ea98a23@aol.com>, AMilb36287@aol.com writes >>From the will of Robert Hesketh of Rufford, Lancs., Esq., 1620: > >"Itm. yt is not my will that any blacks >shall be given but unto my sonnes and daughters but I would >have the poore people to have Clokes and gownes to pray for >mee." > >Would this be mourning, i.e. black clothes? Yes - often wills made specific provision for mourning clothing 0 which widows were supposed to wear for a year, other kin for at least 6 months, preferably more. In this case, only the sons and daughter are to get mourning, noit brothers and sisters, servants and more distant kin and friends, who sometimes got it. >I haven't seen this wording >before. And how about the cloaks and gowns to be given to the poor to pray for >him? >Was this customary? Yes - it was the duty of a wealthy man to give charity to the poor, and this was a very practical form of it, worth having. And it would ensure a good turn out for the funeral/ Often gifts were left in money or (usually) kind, for the poor at the funeral, and at the month's mind, a month later, and the year's mind. This meant several people would be saying nice things and praying for his soul for some while to come. Early C16 wills may add a trenatll of masses to be said by a priest. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Eve wrote: Usually, leaving a son or daughter one shilling just means that they have already had their share or the estate, on setting up in business or marriage. Where someone is really 'cut off' it usually says 'twelve pence of English money and no more, because he had been ungrateful to his mother and myself' The name had to be mentioned, otherwise the son could contest the will on the grounds that his name had simply been missed in copying. The above phrase makes it quite clear - forgotten, no, disliked, yes. -- Eve McLaughlin This fellow did not take any chances on his five children either (Will of Francis Langcake, Maryland, USA, 03/02/1754): "To five children: -all livestock to be divided equally and if any of the children become contentious over the division of property that child to be debarred from their share with only one shilling sterling -children to choose a mediator to divide the property" Art Lengkeek, Chilliwack,BC

Alejandro If you were relatively well off you might give money to poor people who were to mourn you, this could be financial and/or clothing. Blacks is presumably the mourning cloths, as you said. If you look at the wills of richer people you get vast amounts of black cloth distributed, it was one of the most expensive parts of the funeral expenses for an aristocrat for example. Was this man a catholic? Having people to pray for you has echoes of the catholic belief in purgatory, where the more prays were said for you after you had died, the faster you got through purgatory ... So before the Reformation most middling sort and gentry wills will have money to priests to say masses, and for people to pray for the individual. This belief vanished as an official one with the Church of England - so perhaps he is either catholic or old fashioned. I sometimes suspect that some will makers copy phrases out of their parents' wills ... Lyn B

From the will of Robert Hesketh of Rufford, Lancs., Esq., 1620: "Itm. yt is not my will that any blacks shall be given but unto my sonnes and daughters but I would have the poore people to have Clokes and gownes to pray for mee." Would this be mourning, i.e. black clothes? I haven't seen this wording before. And how about the cloaks and gowns to be given to the poor to pray for him? Was this customary? Thanks, Alejandro Milberg Boston, Mass.

In message <008501c4b689$87a615c0$e1d0fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Hello Folks, > >Now we've had a good discussion on the widow's thirds, and very interesting it >has been, can we have something similar on the child's part and the dead's part? The 'deid's part' is a Scottish expression, meaning the third which the testator can dispose of at will. It is different in England >Explanation of the practice of getting rid of a child's rights by cutting >him/her off with a shilling could also be enlightening. Usually, leaving a son or daughter one shilling just means that they have already had their share or the estate, on setting up in business or marriage. Where someone is really 'cut off' it usually says 'twelve pence of English money and no more, because he had been ungrateful to his mother and myself' The name had to be mentioned, otherwise the son could contest the will on the grounds that his name had simply been missed in copying. The above phrase makes it quite clear - forgotten, no, disliked, yes. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Thank you also for the explanation - as always succint and easily understood. I have found around my area (High Peak and Eastern Cheshire) that the practice was still followed to a certain extent in the 17th century but was gradually dying out. It seemed to be optional in a way and there are examples of dividing the personalty into two rather than three and sometimes ignoring the wife completely but she always got it back in the end, if she survived so long. As for cutting off with a shilling. I agree about it serving as a token to show either former provision or displeasure with a child or children and it was seldom described as a shilling and almost always as twelve pence. I realise this was the same thing and twelve pence was more a matter of preference. I have to say that I find how these things were divided are always very interesting as they often show the background to how people felt and what was going on in a family. A reluctance to leave anything to "my disobedient daughter" speaks volumes. She had the temerity become very protestant and her husband got the money that should have been hers. As others on the list may know, I have a particular affection for the man who left almost everything to his wife and particularly mentioned a cow called Lovely. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] thirds - the other two > Hello Audrey, > > <<Now we've had a good discussion on the widow's thirds, and very interesting it has been, can we have something similar on the child's part and the dead's part?>> > > This is a very complicated subject - different laws and customs have applied at different periods and in different parts of England. > > The system you described ("that an estate would be divided into three - a third for the widow, a third for the children and a third for the dead. ... that the children would share a third of the estate, the wife would have a third and the testator had a third which he could leave as he chose.") was always the law in Scotland, and was the law in England in the earlier middle ages (it was mentioned in Magna Carta). It remained in force in the Archdiocese of York up till 1692, and also in London until 1724. However it ceased to apply in the Archdiocese of Canterbury some time during the later middle ages. > > In the south (outside London) the testator's right to leave his property to anyone he wished became the general law during the later middle ages, though in some areas local customs which gave the children a reasonable share remained in force for a time. However by 1600 the law was the same for pretty much the entire province, and stayed that way until the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 once again gave spouses and children minimum shares which couldn't be overridden by a will. > > The widows and children of men who didn't make wills usually had better protection, since they were always entitled to fixed shares under the laws of intestate inheritance (though there was period in the 16th and 17th centuries when these began to be ignored and administrators often divided the estate up amongst themselves - but a particularly scandalous case in 1666 caused the Statute of Distributions to be passed in 1670, which set out how intestate estates should be divided, the first of a long series of statutes on the subject). > > Incidentally, the system of thirds only applied if the testator left both a wife and a child or children. If he left only a wife, or only children, then the wife/children got half and half went under the will. > > All of the above laws only applied to chattels, not to land. Widows and children had no rights to a testator's land, except of course for the widow's right of dower (and also that during the early middle ages some types of land couldn't be devised by will and had to pass to the heir specified by the laws of inheritance). Even dower eventually disappeared: the Dower Act 1833 enabled wills to override rights of dower, and in 1925 it was abolished entirely (though the rights given to spouses and children in 1938, under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, applied to both land and other property equally). > > <<Explanation of the practice of getting rid of a child's rights by cutting him/her off with a shilling could also be enlightening.>> > > I believe this is entirely apocryphal. If a child had legal rights they couldn't be removed by leaving him/her just a shilling. As far as I'm aware bequests of this sort were usually intended as token gifts to children who had already been provided for during the testator's lifetime (so as not to leave them unmentioned in the will), though perhaps sometimes they were made as a contemptuous slighting of an ungrateful child who wasn't going to be given anything better. > > <<Also the attempts to abolish the practice of entailing or remaindering estates would be another interesting topic, in my opinion. It may help some people who are reading early modern wills.>> > > Alas, that is an enormous subject, and a very complex one, and I couldn't even begin to try to explain it. > > Matt Tompkins > Blaston, Leics > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >

Matt Many thanks for that explanation - which emphasises the differences round the country. I had been about to reply to Audrey's email saying 'they don't really exist in the same way, local custom etc. - then thought that although that's true of my main area of interest, Suffolk, I didn't know if it was true everywhere - and then you answered Audrey's question and mine. Lyn B

<<Interestingly, when I came as a bride to South Carolina in the early 1970s, each time we sold a house my husband had to leave the room so I could sign over my dower rights freely, proving I was not coerced to do so!>> It's always nice to hear of old traditions being kept up. And this is certainly a very old one: medieval manorial court rolls of the sort I am presently working on, from the 14th and 15th centuries, are full of entries recording land sales which begin something like this: "To this court came Robert Rede and Emma his wife and, she having been examined separately in open court by the steward [ie the official presiding over the court], transferred a messuage with crofts, ditches, gardens ..." (from a manor court held at Great Horwood in Buckinghamshire, on 19 April 1401) The point was that a wife had to consent to a sale of the couple's property - if she didn't consent then later she could claim dower in it from the new owner - and wives were always examined separately to ensure that their consent was given freely. This need for separate examination was taken seriously, too. The following entry is from a court held on 22 April 1420: "Isabel Wilkyn widow of John Wilkyn came to this court and sought to be declared the owner of 1 messuage and 1 virgate of land of which she and John had been owners according to the custom of the manor, notwithstanding that John had lately transferred it to Richard their son, which Isabel could not deny, but she produced a copy of the court roll as proof that she and John had owned it jointly. Because she was not examined by the steward, the court decided that she should recover her former interest in the land and tenement notwithstanding her husband's transfer ..." I have seen the court roll which recorded the transfer to the son (15 years earlier, in 1405) and it said that both John and Isabel had come to the court to record the transfer - but did not record that Isabel had been examined separately. So she got the property back. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

Hello Audrey, <<Now we've had a good discussion on the widow's thirds, and very interesting it has been, can we have something similar on the child's part and the dead's part?>> This is a very complicated subject - different laws and customs have applied at different periods and in different parts of England. The system you described ("that an estate would be divided into three - a third for the widow, a third for the children and a third for the dead. ... that the children would share a third of the estate, the wife would have a third and the testator had a third which he could leave as he chose.") was always the law in Scotland, and was the law in England in the earlier middle ages (it was mentioned in Magna Carta). It remained in force in the Archdiocese of York up till 1692, and also in London until 1724. However it ceased to apply in the Archdiocese of Canterbury some time during the later middle ages. In the south (outside London) the testator's right to leave his property to anyone he wished became the general law during the later middle ages, though in some areas local customs which gave the children a reasonable share remained in force for a time. However by 1600 the law was the same for pretty much the entire province, and stayed that way until the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 once again gave spouses and children minimum shares which couldn't be overridden by a will. The widows and children of men who didn't make wills usually had better protection, since they were always entitled to fixed shares under the laws of intestate inheritance (though there was period in the 16th and 17th centuries when these began to be ignored and administrators often divided the estate up amongst themselves - but a particularly scandalous case in 1666 caused the Statute of Distributions to be passed in 1670, which set out how intestate estates should be divided, the first of a long series of statutes on the subject). Incidentally, the system of thirds only applied if the testator left both a wife and a child or children. If he left only a wife, or only children, then the wife/children got half and half went under the will. All of the above laws only applied to chattels, not to land. Widows and children had no rights to a testator's land, except of course for the widow's right of dower (and also that during the early middle ages some types of land couldn't be devised by will and had to pass to the heir specified by the laws of inheritance). Even dower eventually disappeared: the Dower Act 1833 enabled wills to override rights of dower, and in 1925 it was abolished entirely (though the rights given to spouses and children in 1938, under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, applied to both land and other property equally). <<Explanation of the practice of getting rid of a child's rights by cutting him/her off with a shilling could also be enlightening.>> I believe this is entirely apocryphal. If a child had legal rights they couldn't be removed by leaving him/her just a shilling. As far as I'm aware bequests of this sort were usually intended as token gifts to children who had already been provided for during the testator's lifetime (so as not to leave them unmentioned in the will), though perhaps sometimes they were made as a contemptuous slighting of an ungrateful child who wasn't going to be given anything better. <<Also the attempts to abolish the practice of entailing or remaindering estates would be another interesting topic, in my opinion. It may help some people who are reading early modern wills.>> Alas, that is an enormous subject, and a very complex one, and I couldn't even begin to try to explain it. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

Hello Folks, Now we've had a good discussion on the widow's thirds, and very interesting it has been, can we have something similar on the child's part and the dead's part? Explanation of the practice of getting rid of a child's rights by cutting him/her off with a shilling could also be enlightening. Also the attempts to abolish the practice of entailing or remaindering estates would be another interesting topic, in my opinion. It may help some people who are reading early modern wills. Audrey

Interestingly, when I came as a bride to South Carolina in the early 1970s, each time we sold a house my husband had to leave the room so I could sign over my dower rights freely, proving I was not coerced to do so! Chanda Blitch Hickory, North Carolina On Oct 19, 2004, at 6:00 PM, OLD-ENGLISH-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > From: Eve McLaughlin <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> > Date: October 18, 2004 8:13:42 PM EDT > To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [OEL] Dower Rights; Title of Dower and Thirds > > > In message <20041018173655.39462.qmail@web60906.mail.yahoo.com>, Sharon > Pilkington <ssusmol@yahoo.ca> writes >> Dower -dowry. Here's a link. It pertains to Canada, but it should >> suffice as an >> explaination. > dowry is what the father gives with his daughter on marriage. Dower is > her right to a cut when the husband dies (and she is a dowager). Subtle > difference, though the second may be settled when the first is handed > over.

In message <kgriffiths5000$81.131.109.18$.002e01c4b538$41bcba20$e64218d4 @KFGriffiths>, Keith Griffiths <kgriffiths5000@btinternet.com> writes >This query came up on another list but there has been no response. I wonder >whether our list might care to comment. > >Regards >Keith Griffiths > >----- Original Message ----- >I've recently come across a will with the following written: > >Item I give and bequeath unto Ann my wife my clock during the term of her >natural life I also give her the sum of twenty shillings of lawful money of >Great Britain in full purpose and to the intent utterly to debar her of >Dower right or and Title of Dower and to exclude her of and from all manner >of right or title claim or demand to any moveable goods of chattels of mine >which some call Thirds or any other right or title to any house or land of >or belonging to me otherwise than was agreed upon and specified in a >Londor?[I couldn't make out this word] Articles made between us before >marriage and instead of her Thirds A widow was normally entitled to one third for life of the moveable estate i.e household goods, cash, furniture, livestock, tools, stock in trade, leaseholds etc. Entailed land went to the heir, as did most copyholds, but freeholds were subject to dower. In some manors, widows did have a right to a third of the copyhold, but not if they remarried or lived with another man, A husband usually surrendered his copyhold to the use of himself and his wife or the longest liver, if he wanted her to remain on it after his death. This was rather inconvenient if the property was needed by the heir (oldest son probably) to run the farm or business, or run his household. And if the widow was his stepmother, even more so,- even if she was his mother, if she didn't get on with his wife. So a prudent man who could afford it made settlement (in this case a Bond or Articles) setting out what his wife as widow would be given of equivalent value to one third of the personal estate. This might be a small cottage (a dower house for the gentry) or an annuity of equivalent value to a third of the average proceeds of the farm or whatever. The widow's thirds, or widow's bench was a contentious item in many families, and you may find a clause that the widow is going to get this share of furniture and a room and this amount of money, and if she demands her thirds she loses the lot./ -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <20041018173655.39462.qmail@web60906.mail.yahoo.com>, Sharon Pilkington <ssusmol@yahoo.ca> writes >Dower -dowry. Here's a link. It pertains to Canada, but it should suffice as an >explaination. dowry is what the father gives with his daughter on marriage. Dower is her right to a cut when the husband dies (and she is a dowager). Subtle difference, though the second may be settled when the first is handed over. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I expect that many will reply on this one. This is what I understand to be the case. It was the custom and generally accepted that an estate would be divided into three - a third for the widow, a third for the children and a third for the dead. This may sound odd but it means that the children would share a third of the estate, the wife would have a third and the testator had a third which he could leave as he chose. There would usually be a qualification on the wife's legacy that she would have this for life or until remarriage. She could not will her part of the estate as she pleased and neither could she sell it. If she remarried, then the goods would revert to the estate and the right heir. An overall heir would be named and he (usually the eldest son or eldest male relative if no son - this practice called male primo geniture) would eventually get everything left to his mother. I think that, whatever the agreement between the wife and her husband, she was entitled to a certain share of the goods, her clothes and enough to keep her in the fashion to which she had become accustomed. This custom and the widow's third was known as the dower. This is the reason that, in large estates, a house may set aside for the dowager while the heir enjoys the main residence, this house being known as the dower house. The dowry is a different thing as far as I am aware and was part of the marriage settlement where a jointure was paid to the prospective husband that may be kept for use by his wife both during marriage and may be part of the dower in her widowhood. Please, someone, put me right if the above is not the case. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Griffiths" <kgriffiths5000@btinternet.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:30 PM Subject: [OEL] Dower Rights; Title of Dower and Thirds > This query came up on another list but there has been no response. I wonder > whether our list might care to comment. > > Regards > Keith Griffiths > > ----- Original Message ----- > I've recently come across a will with the following written: > > Item I give and bequeath unto Ann my wife my clock during the term of her > natural life I also give her the sum of twenty shillings of lawful money of > Great Britain in full purpose and to the intent utterly to debar her of > Dower right or and Title of Dower and to exclude her of and from all manner > of right or title claim or demand to any moveable goods of chattels of mine > which some call Thirds or any other right or title to any house or land of > or belonging to me otherwise than was agreed upon and specified in a > Londor?[I couldn't make out this word] Articles made between us before > marriage and instead of her Thirds > > Could anyone please explain to me what Dower right or Title of Dower and > Thirds are? > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 15/10/2004 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Hello Keith, in medieval times, and right up until the 19C law reforms, a widow had the right to keep a share of her deceased husband's estate for the rest of her life (after the widow's death her share passed to the husband's heir). This right was usually called Dower (not to be confused with a wife's dowry, which was a quite different thing), though strictly speaking dower only applied to freehold property - a widow's similar right in respect of copyhold property was properly called Free Bench. The widow's share was usually a third (though not always - different places might have different customs), which is why dower was also sometimes called Thirds. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics -----Original Message----- From: Keith Griffiths [mailto:kgriffiths5000@btinternet.com] Sent: 18 Oct 2004 18:31 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Dower Rights; Title of Dower and Thirds This query came up on another list but there has been no response. I wonder whether our list might care to comment. Regards Keith Griffiths ----- Original Message ----- I've recently come across a will with the following written: Item I give and bequeath unto Ann my wife my clock during the term of her natural life I also give her the sum of twenty shillings of lawful money of Great Britain in full purpose and to the intent utterly to debar her of Dower right or and Title of Dower and to exclude her of and from all manner of right or title claim or demand to any moveable goods of chattels of mine which some call Thirds or any other right or title to any house or land of or belonging to me otherwise than was agreed upon and specified in a Londor?[I couldn't make out this word] Articles made between us before marriage and instead of her Thirds Could anyone please explain to me what Dower right or Title of Dower and Thirds are? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 15/10/2004 ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

This query came up on another list but there has been no response. I wonder whether our list might care to comment. Regards Keith Griffiths ----- Original Message ----- I've recently come across a will with the following written: Item I give and bequeath unto Ann my wife my clock during the term of her natural life I also give her the sum of twenty shillings of lawful money of Great Britain in full purpose and to the intent utterly to debar her of Dower right or and Title of Dower and to exclude her of and from all manner of right or title claim or demand to any moveable goods of chattels of mine which some call Thirds or any other right or title to any house or land of or belonging to me otherwise than was agreed upon and specified in a Londor?[I couldn't make out this word] Articles made between us before marriage and instead of her Thirds Could anyone please explain to me what Dower right or Title of Dower and Thirds are? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 15/10/2004

Dower -dowry. Here's a link. It pertains to Canada, but it should suffice as an explaination. http://www.ghm-mhg.mcgill.ca/ppi/bradbury.html Sharon Keith Griffiths <kgriffiths5000@btinternet.com> wrote: This query came up on another list but there has been no response. I wonder whether our list might care to comment. Regards Keith Griffiths ----- Original Message ----- I've recently come across a will with the following written: Item I give and bequeath unto Ann my wife my clock during the term of her natural life I also give her the sum of twenty shillings of lawful money of Great Britain in full purpose and to the intent utterly to debar her of Dower right or and Title of Dower and to exclude her of and from all manner of right or title claim or demand to any moveable goods of chattels of mine which some call Thirds or any other right or title to any house or land of or belonging to me otherwise than was agreed upon and specified in a Londor?[I couldn't make out this word] Articles made between us before marriage and instead of her Thirds Could anyone please explain to me what Dower right or Title of Dower and Thirds are? --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

Greetings, I have a seven line piece of data from the Hunts Manor Court Records 1777 which I would appreciate some help with please. I have it saved in a jpg file. It is to do with the surrender of Mesoudge? Cottage or Tenement in Houghton, the next line also mentions comons in Warboys, it is this piece I am stuck on. My 3 Gt. Grandfather came to Houghton Hunts abt 1758, he married in Ramsay 1746, we have not been able to locate where he was inbetween, and births, so I am hopeful the mention of Warboys could be the clue and breakthrough we are looking for. I can send the data if someone is able to offer insight for me. Thanking you, Jan Robb....N.Z.

In message <008f01c4b3be$12748200$3b677cca@oemcomputer>, Ken Robb <kwrobb@ispnz.co.nz> writes >Greetings, > I have a seven line piece of data from the Hunts Manor Court >Records 1777 which I would appreciate some help with please. I have it saved in >a jpg file. never very suvvessful withjpgs - my computer tends to scramble them. >It is to do with the surrender of Mesoudge? messuage, just means a larger house with its garden, yard, barns etc >Cottage or Tenement in Houghton, the >next line also mentions comons in Warboys, it is this piece I am stuck on. It was usual to surrender copyhold property 'to the uses of my will' personally in advance of death if possible, or through two reliable tenants of the manor if you were intending to die between meetings of the manor court. It was possible for a man who was tenant to surrender to the use of his wife amnd himself and the longest liver (which ensured she was not thrown out the moment he died) or to get the paperwork fone ready for his son or other heir to take over. The incomer would have to pay a fine (final payment of a few shillings) and a heriot( value of the best beast set . -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society