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

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

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/ >