A passage in an indenture of 1712 has a couple of things that intrigue me: "And whereas the said Edward Thornes departed this life intestate in or about the yeare of our Lord God One thousand seven hundred and one And whereas certaine Articles of Agreemt. beareing date the thirteenth day of Aprill seventeene hundred & two Edward Thornes gent Jane Williams & Catherine Hanmer widdows Sister of the said Edwd.Thornes of the one parte & Children of the said Edwd. Thornes the Asignee and John Thornes & Mary Thornes sister of the said Edwd. Thornes of the other parte & other Children of the said Edwd. Thornes the Asignee aforesaid touching the division of the personall Estate of Edward Thornes of Kinaston aforesaid..." The document could not have been redacted in a more confusing manner. There are two Edward Thornes, the one who died in 1701 and his grandson of the same name, also called the "asignee" because he was assigned a lease of the parcel of land in question in 1694. Edward (the "asignee"), John and Mary Thornes were siblings. Catherine Hanmer was neé Thornes, a sister of the older Edward. a) I suspect that Jane Williams was also née Thornes, and was another sister of the older Edward. The text where they are named clearly reads "widdows" - the final "s" is practically identical to the one in Williams in the same line. But then, why "Sister" in singular? A mistake? b) If the unspecified children of Edward Thornes the asignee appear as part the second party, why would they be mentioned again afterwards ("and other children of the said Edward Thornes the Asignee aforesaid")? A third party is not mentioned, perhaps the writer didn't realize he had already included the children earlier in the sentence? I can send a scan of this section if anybody wants to take a look. Any ideas would be appreciated. Thank you! Alejandro Milberg Boston, Mass. **************You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
Hello Alejandro, The document you refer to is the Assignment dated 6 June 1712 between Thomas Hanmer and Edward Higgens (1) and Daniell Peirceson (2), part of the Mostyn-Owen collection at Shrewsbury Archives, ref. 3890/2/1/110-11? The A2A catalogue contains a summary of its contents in which the recital of the 1702 Articles of Agreement appears as: "By articles of agreement of 13 April 1702 Edward Thornes gent, Jane Williams and Catherine Hanmer, widow, sister of Edward Thornes (1) and children of Edward Thornes the assignee and John Thornes and Mary Thornes sister of the said Edward Thornes (2) and other children of Edward Thornes the assignee touching the division of the personal estate of Edward Thornes of Kinaston, on consideration that John Thornes and Mary Thornes should sue forth letters of administration of the goods of Edw. Thornes decd. for their own use, and Edward Thornes, Jane Williams and Catherine Hanmer released to John and Mary Thornes all their title in the goods of Edward Thornes the father." So in answer to query (a), it seems the archivist who calendared the document read 'sister' as singular, so that it and 'widdow' applied to Catherine Hanmer alone. Could the apparent -s on the end of 'widdow' have been just a flourish? On (b), I think the explanation is that the parties to the Articles of Agreement have been described in an unusual and misleading way. I think "children of the said Edwd. Thornes the Assignee" and "other children of the said Edwd. Thornes the Assignee" are intended to be descriptions of the previously named parties, not the start of the next following set of parties. In other words Edward Thornes gent, Jane Williams and Catherine Hanmer are the parties of the one part and also children of Edward Thornes the assignee, while John and Mary Thornes are the parties of the second part and also other children of Edward Thornes the assignee. So the A2A calendar has placed its "(1)" and "(2)" in the wrong place. They ought each to be shifted a few words to the right, so that they come after "children of the said Edward Thorne the Assignee", making it: "By articles of agreement of 13 April 1702 Edward Thornes gent, Jane Williams and Catherine Hanmer, widow, sister of Edward Thornes and children of Edward Thornes the assignee (1) and John Thornes and Mary Thornes sister of the said Edward Thornes and other children of Edward Thornes the assignee (2) ..." It was an understandable mistake - it is a conveyancing convention that all description of the parties comes *before* phrases like 'of the one part'. Matt Tompkins -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of AMilb36287@aol.com Sent: 23 February 2009 23:21 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Widdows and Children A passage in an indenture of 1712 has a couple of things that intrigue me: "And whereas the said Edward Thornes departed this life intestate in or about the yeare of our Lord God One thousand seven hundred and one And whereas certaine Articles of Agreemt. beareing date the thirteenth day of Aprill seventeene hundred & two Edward Thornes gent Jane Williams & Catherine Hanmer widdows Sister of the said Edwd.Thornes of the one parte & Children of the said Edwd. Thornes the Asignee and John Thornes & Mary Thornes sister of the said Edwd. Thornes of the other parte & other Children of the said Edwd. Thornes the Asignee aforesaid touching the division of the personall Estate of Edward Thornes of Kinaston aforesaid..." The document could not have been redacted in a more confusing manner. There are two Edward Thornes, the one who died in 1701 and his grandson of the same name, also called the "asignee" because he was assigned a lease of the parcel of land in question in 1694. Edward (the "asignee"), John and Mary Thornes were siblings. Catherine Hanmer was neé Thornes, a sister of the older Edward. a) I suspect that Jane Williams was also née Thornes, and was another sister of the older Edward. The text where they are named clearly reads "widdows" - the final "s" is practically identical to the one in Williams in the same line. But then, why "Sister" in singular? A mistake? b) If the unspecified children of Edward Thornes the asignee appear as part the second party, why would they be mentioned again afterwards ("and other children of the said Edward Thornes the Asignee aforesaid")? A third party is not mentioned, perhaps the writer didn't realize he had already included the children earlier in the sentence? I can send a scan of this section if anybody wants to take a look. Any ideas would be appreciated. Thank you! Alejandro Milberg Boston, Mass. **************You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001) ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message