Hello All An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son (Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold 100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got his own back. regards Chris Bartlett > 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 > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > >

In message <CLEOIFGLEIJMHKEDEPDJAEDPEBAA.woodcom@ihug.co.nz>, Chris Bartlett <woodcom@ihug.co.nz> writes >Hello All > >An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son >(Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note >was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold >100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two >years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family >who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got >his own back. A father could onl;y do so much, even if he hated his son's guts. He could sell or leave elsewhere freehold land, but he could not touch entailed land or copyhold land with the consent of his heir. Sometimes an eldest son is not mentioned in a will BECAUSE he will get the main estate anyway. It does look odd when the younger ones are left sums of money or freehold bits, and the eldest (my dear son Fred) is just told to pay them the money, but this is because he is doing very well indeed automatically. Maybe Thomas bought in some freehold, and then sold it again so Dick didn't get it. But he could not touch the bulk of the estate. And Dick was automatically administrator to the (unmarried) brothers as next of kin - nothing could be done about that either. There is also no way a peer can cut off his heir even if (as with the present Lord Blandford, the father (Duke of Marlborough) is said to disapprove of his racketty way of life). So if you have a family story that John would have been an Earl but he married the cook and his father disowned him' treat it with the suspicion it deserves. Check the convict registers closely. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society