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/ > >