confusing will (Staffordshire)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Nathaniel Blurton, signed 1753-5-21 (he died the same year):

Item I give and bequeath to my Daughter Mary Blurton one Shilling
Memorandam for want of Heirs of my son John Blurton I give it to
My Daughter Mary Adderly and her Heirs for Ever Item I
give all my personal Estate to my wife for her life with al hous
hold goods and Husbandryware and Cattle and Chattel Bonds Bills
Item I give to Mary my Wife all my Lands for he life

[I _think_ the word - repeated several times - is "Item" (used as a sort
of bullet point here?); it looks like "Ham", but that makes even less
sense.]

Any idea what it means, particularly "Memorandam"? (And yes, there's no
punctuation. I've got a scan of the original. It can be found on
FindMyPast for those with a subscription.)

FWIW: I know he _did_ have a son John, and a daughter Mary who did marry
Mr. Adderley about five weeks before the will was written. I have no
evidence that he had _another_ daughter Mary, though I have found the
marriage (173x) of another Mary Blurton, who I think is someone else's
daughter.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Item I give and bequeath to my Daughter Mary Blurton one Shilling
Memorandam for want of Heirs of my son John Blurton I give it to
My Daughter Mary Adderly and her Heirs for Ever  Item I
give all my personal Estate to my wife for her life with al hous
hold goods and Husbandryware and Cattle and Chattel Bonds Bills
Item I give to Mary my Wife all my Lands for he life

I'm not sure about the Memorandum part but I've seen a nominal sum given
when the beneficiary has already been given a marriage portion or
similar. The reason might be explicitly stated in the will.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[I _think_ the word - repeated several times - is "Item" (used as a sort
of bullet point here?); it looks like "Ham", but that makes even less
sense.]

If you type "Item" into Google translate as Latin it will tell you that
it means "also" in English. The first term of the will will normally
start with "In primis" so the will is saying "First do this also do that
also do something else".


Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <1-***@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
Goddard <***@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Ian Goddard
I'm not sure about the Memorandum part but I've seen a nominal sum

It definitely looks like "Memorandam", but that could just be a
variation.

Post by Ian Goddard
given when the beneficiary has already been given a marriage portion or
similar. The reason might be explicitly stated in the will.

By "marriage portion", I assume you mean he'd paid for the wedding and
given them a substantial gift (land and/or money). That would make sense
in this case, if both Marys are the same person.

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[I _think_ the word - repeated several times - is "Item" (used as a
sort of bullet point here?); it looks like "Ham", but that makes even
less sense.]

If you type "Item" into Google translate as Latin it will tell you that
it means "also" in English. The first term of the will will normally

That would definitely make sense.

Post by Ian Goddard
start with "In primis" so the will is saying "First do this also do
that also do something else".

He actually uses "first" and "Lastly" in English, but I suppose the
"Item" could have been common usage.

Post by Ian Goddard
Ian

Here's my attempt at the whole will (though see next post too):

[Transcript - and comments in [] - attempted by G6JPG, 2019-9-10]
[Dubious characters shown as ? (there are no "?" in the original)]

Lich[field]: 27: July
1753.
I. Nath: Blurton
?? Hanbury
1: ??: h??:

[next image]
In the name of God Amen I Nathanail Blurton living at Hanbury
Woodend in the Parish of Hanbury and County of Stafford being in
good health praised be given to Almighty God do make this my last will
and Testament in manner for bo?ing and principality I Resine
my Soul to God trusting through the Merits of my Saviour Jesus Christ
to have full and free pardon and forgiveness of all my Sins and my
Body I Comit to the Earth to be Decently Buryed in hope of a
Joyfull Resurrection to Life Everlasting and for all such Temporable
Estate as it hath pleased Almighty God to bestow upon me I
give and dispose thereof as followeth first I appoint my Debts
and funeral Charges to be paid and for the payment thereof I give
and bequeath to my Executors full power to Sel or let my Lands
which I now live upon Called by the name Prospect house in þe
Parish of Hanbury and County of Stafford I give and bequeath
the aforesaid Lands to my Son John and his Heirs lawfuly begoten
at the Death of his mother he paying what is prescribed
[The next word appears several times; it looks like Ham.
I have rendered it "Item" as that seems to make some sense.
It has been suggested it's Latin for "also".]
Item I give and bequeath to my Daughter Mary Blurton one Shilling
Memorandam for want of Heirs of my son John Blurton I give it to
My Daughter Mary Adderly and her Heirs for Ever Item I
give all my personal Estate to my wife for her life with al hous
hold goods and Husbandryware and Cattle and Chattel Bonds Bills
Item I give to Mary my Wife all my Lands for her life Lastly
I appoint my Loving wife Executor of this my Last will and
Testament given under my hand the
Twenty first day of May 1753

Signed Sealed Published and declared natahail Blurton [blob]
By the Testator as a Last will and
Testament in the presence of us who
Subscribed our names in the presence
of the testator John Tomlinson
John Hollis
John Hollis
[next image]
Lich[field]: 27th July 1753.

Let a probate of this will be granted
to Mary Blurton Widow for the Execution
named therein.
The said executrix was
duly sworn before me.

Tho.s White Snr.
[next image]
Nine
Pence [probably evidence of fee paid]
Quire

A True Inventory of the Goods of Nathaniel Blurton who
Departed this Life the 4th Day of July 1753 a follows
£ S D
Purse and Apparrell _ _ _ _ 02 10 0
Goods in the House a Clock _ _ _ 01 05 0
three Beds _ _ _ _ _ 06 00
[torn]
A Dresser of Drawers _ _ _ _ 00 06 0
Pewter and Brass _ _ _ _ 02 02 6
7 Cows _ _ _ _ _ 27 00 0
5 Young Beasts _ _ _ _ _ 09 05 0
4 Calves _ _ _ _ _ 02 00 0
A Mare and Colt _ _ _ _ _ 06 00 0
A Pig in the Stye _ _ _ _ 01 02 6
Old Cheese _ _ _ _ _ 01 05 0
Old Hay _ _ _ _ _ _ 02 10 0
An Old Cart _ _ _ _ _ 01 00 0
Lumber seen and unseen _ _ _ _ 01 02 0
---------------
63 08 00
Appraised by ---------------
George Hedderley
and
Richard Holmes
his X Mark

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
do make this my last will
and Testament in manner for bo?ing and principality I Resine

"do make this my last will and Testaent in manner following and
principally I Resine"

As Keeper of the Wills for the Blo(o)r(e) Society I am *very* familiar
with the standard wording of old Wills!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
do make this my last will
and Testament in manner for bo?ing and principality I Resine

"do make this my last will and Testaent in manner following and
principally I Resine"
As Keeper of the Wills for the Blo(o)r(e) Society I am *very* familiar
with the standard wording of old Wills!

Thanks Jenny!

There is a definite gap, and there's no way the third character can be
an l, but I'm sure you're right - it makes sense. It's definitely a w.
It looks more like principality - there are definitely three spikes
between the a and the y - but again yours makes sense. (Do you have a
FindMyPast membership?)

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
do make this my last will
and Testament in manner for bo?ing and principality I Resine

"do make this my last will and Testaent in manner following and
principally I Resine"
As Keeper of the Wills for the Blo(o)r(e) Society I am *very* familiar
with the standard wording of old Wills!

Thanks Jenny!
There is a definite gap, and there's no way the third character can be
an l,

You're right – it's an 'r'. I'm in absolutely no doubt that what it
actually says is "in manner for lowing". The normal wording here is "in
manner and form following", though sometimes the words "and form" are
omitted. I think what has happened is that the clerk intended to write
"in manner and form following" but inadvertently omitted the word "and"
and only noticed once he'd written most of the word "form". He then
decided to change it into the start of the word "following" and
continued with the "lowing" bit. I wonder whether he planned to wait
for the ink to dry before trying crossing out the "r" and adding an "l",
for which he has left space, but forgot to return to it.

You may also notice that the word later on that line which you've
transcribed as "principally", and is undoubtedly intended to say that,
actually seems to say "principality".

This seems to suggest an inattentive clerk, and this gives credence to
my suggestion that he omitted the entire second half of the "Memorandum"
sentence later in the will, and tried to fudge it by inserting an "it".

Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
do make this my last will
and Testament in manner for bo?ing and principality I Resine

"do make this my last will and Testaent in manner following and
principally I Resine"
As Keeper of the Wills for the Blo(o)r(e) Society I am *very* familiar
with the standard wording of old Wills!

Thanks Jenny!
There is a definite gap, and there's no way the third character can be
an l,

You're right – it's an 'r'. I'm in absolutely no doubt that what it
actually says is "in manner for lowing". The normal wording here is
"in manner and form following", though sometimes the words "and form"
are omitted. I think what has happened is that the clerk intended to
write "in manner and form following" but inadvertently omitted the word
"and" and only noticed once he'd written most of the word "form". He
then decided to change it into the start of the word "following" and
continued with the "lowing" bit. I wonder whether he planned to wait
for the ink to dry before trying crossing out the "r" and adding an
"l", for which he has left space, but forgot to return to it.

I think you're probably completely right there! There's evidence
elsewhere, such as giving daughter Mary two different surnames, and
confusing references to son John.

Post by Richard Smith
You may also notice that the word later on that line which you've
transcribed as "principally", and is undoubtedly intended to say that,
actually seems to say "principality".

I'd transcribed it as principality, though as you and Jenny both say,
principally would make more sense.

Post by Richard Smith
This seems to suggest an inattentive clerk, and this gives credence to
my suggestion that he omitted the entire second half of the
"Memorandum" sentence later in the will, and tried to fudge it by
inserting an "it".

Yes.

Post by Richard Smith
Richard

John

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Item I give and bequeath to my Daughter Mary Blurton one Shilling
Memorandam for want of Heirs of my son John Blurton I give it to
My Daughter Mary Adderly and her Heirs for Ever Item I
give all my personal Estate to my wife for her life with al hous
hold goods and Husbandryware and Cattle and Chattel Bonds Bills
Item I give to Mary my Wife all my Lands for he life
[I _think_ the word - repeated several times - is "Item" (used as a sort
of bullet point here?); it looks like "Ham", but that makes even less
sense.]

As Ian says, "item" is Latin for "also". The first instruction in the
list begins "First and principally" – that's where he resigns his soul
to God. This dated-sounding use of the word resign, which he spells
"resine", was not uncommon at that time.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Any idea what it means, particularly "Memorandam"? (And yes, there's no
punctuation. I've got a scan of the original. It can be found on
FindMyPast for those with a subscription.)

Further up the will, Nathaniel has already bequeathed land to "my son
John and his heirs lawfully begotten at the death of his mother". That
bequest suggests John was alive (or believe to be) at the time the will
was written.

The memorandum reads like a contingency regarding a bequest to John in
the event that John has died heirless at the point he would receive the
bequest. The bequest must be the "it" in the sentence, though it's
uncommon for a legal document to say "it" when there's any scope for
ambiguity, as there is here. However, it's worth noting this word has
been inserted interlineally in the will, and I think the clerk drafting
(or copying) the will got muddled, realised he'd omitted the latter half
the sentence, and saw that he could just about fix it by inserting an
"it" earlier on.

The problem is, the natural reading is to assume an "it" refers to the
previous bequest – here the shilling to Mary. But that can't be. It
has to be a bequest to John or it wouldn't make sense to consider the
possibility of his dying heirless. And one wouldn't make contingencies
for a shilling – it would just pass into the residue of the estate.

Like most wills at this time, it was almost certainly made as Nathaniel
was dying, not withstanding his claim to "being in good health praise be
given to Almighty God", as it was written in May and proved that July.
If the bequest was an immediate one on Nathaniel's death, which he knew
to be imminent, it also wouldn't be necessary to make plans for the
eventuality that John died hierless before receiving the bequest. This
could be explained if John were overseas and had not been heard of for
many year, but I'd expect a different wording if that were the case.

So the memorandum must pertain to a substantial bequest that John was to
receive at some future date. Reading the will, it seems fairly clear to
me that this must be "my lands which I now live upon called by the name
Presfield house in the Parish of Hanbury" which John was to receive upon
the death of his mother.

To summarise: Presfield House was left to to his wife for life, and then
to his son John Blurton. However, if John predeceased his mother
without leaving surviving legitimate descendants, then the house went to
his daughter Mary Adderly.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
FWIW: I know he _did_ have a son John, and a daughter Mary who did marry
Mr. Adderley about five weeks before the will was written. I have no
evidence that he had _another_ daughter Mary, though I have found the
marriage (173x) of another Mary Blurton, who I think is someone else's
daughter.

I wouldn't read anything into this. Almost certainly the clerk simply
made an error in writing Mary Blurton. I wouldn't use this to conclude
that Nathaniel had two daughters called Mary. Such things did happen,
but they were very rare. Clerical errors were far more common.

Richard

[Ian Goddard]

I didn't have the advantage of seeing the scan - I don't have FMP - but
that sounds to be a likely interpretation given the additional detail.
A claim to good health (and, usually, perfect recollection) is a regular
element, even when the testator was clearly dying. I think it's to
stave off claims that he didn't know what he was doing. The shilling
bequest is likewise to stave off claims the child was left out.

Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith
<***@ex-parrot.com> writes:
[]

Post by Richard Smith
As Ian says, "item" is Latin for "also". The first instruction in the
list begins "First and principally" – that's where he resigns his
soul to God. This dated-sounding use of the word resign, which he
spells "resine", was not uncommon at that time.

Yes, I guessed it might be. Seems odd today to include the disposition
of one's soul in the will, but it makes a sort of sense!
[]

Post by Richard Smith
Further up the will, Nathaniel has already bequeathed land to "my son
John and his heirs lawfully begotten at the death of his mother". That
bequest suggests John was alive (or believe to be) at the time the will
was written.

Yes, Nathaniel's son John was born around 1720. _His_ son (also John)
had been born 1746. The "lawfully begotten" initially sounds interesting
- suggests Nathaniel either thought (or knew!) his son put it around a
bit, or was afraid of pretenders - but was probably standard wording.

Post by Richard Smith
The memorandum reads like a contingency regarding a bequest to John in
the event that John has died heirless at the point he would receive the

See above. Grandson John had issue (in 1783), so would have been alive
at Nat's will writing. I'm _guessing_ the "for want of Heirs" refers to
daughter Mary, who had married 1753-4-27 (will dated 1753-5-21), though
there's confusion over surnames.

Post by Richard Smith
bequest. The bequest must be the "it" in the sentence, though it's
uncommon for a legal document to say "it" when there's any scope for
ambiguity, as there is here. However, it's worth noting this word has
been inserted interlineally in the will, and I think the clerk drafting
(or copying) the will got muddled, realised he'd omitted the latter
half the sentence, and saw that he could just about fix it by inserting
an "it" earlier on.

Very plausible!

Post by Richard Smith
The problem is, the natural reading is to assume an "it" refers to the
previous bequest – here the shilling to Mary. But that can't be. It
has to be a bequest to John or it wouldn't make sense to consider the
possibility of his dying heirless. And one wouldn't make contingencies
for a shilling – it would just pass into the residue of the estate.

Yes, I'd thought the shilling - even in 1753! - seemed rather mean;
however, as she'd only married 5 weeks earlier, Ian's suggestion that
she'd already had a "marriage portion" sounds very plausible.

Post by Richard Smith
Like most wills at this time, it was almost certainly made as Nathaniel
was dying, not withstanding his claim to "being in good health praise

Yes, I thought that.

Post by Richard Smith
be given to Almighty God", as it was written in May and proved that
July. If the bequest was an immediate one on Nathaniel's death, which
he knew to be imminent, it also wouldn't be necessary to make plans for
the eventuality that John died hierless before receiving the bequest.
This could be explained if John were overseas and had not been heard of
for many year, but I'd expect a different wording if that were the case.

No, I don't think John moved far - born and baptised (1720) in Leigh,
his son John born 1746 in Hanbury.

Post by Richard Smith
So the memorandum must pertain to a substantial bequest that John was
to receive at some future date. Reading the will, it seems fairly
clear to me that this must be "my lands which I now live upon called by
the name Presfield house in the Parish of Hanbury" which John was to
receive upon the death of his mother.

Sounds right. (Though I read it as Prospect house.)

Post by Richard Smith
To summarise: Presfield House was left to to his wife for life, and
then to his son John Blurton. However, if John predeceased his mother
without leaving surviving legitimate descendants, then the house went
to his daughter Mary Adderly.

Right. (They had at least one more child - Elizabetha, baptised 1722
[probably that a Latinised form of Elizabeth] - but I don't know if she
was still alive by 1753. Or, if she was, if married.)

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
FWIW: I know he _did_ have a son John, and a daughter Mary who did marry
Mr. Adderley about five weeks before the will was written. I have no
evidence that he had _another_ daughter Mary, though I have found the
marriage (173x) of another Mary Blurton, who I think is someone else's
daughter.

I wouldn't read anything into this. Almost certainly the clerk simply
made an error in writing Mary Blurton. I wouldn't use this to conclude
that Nathaniel had two daughters called Mary. Such things did happen,
but they were very rare. Clerical errors were far more common.

Sounds plausible. Agreed, two living children with the same name is
unusual (though re-use of a name after early death is relatively common)

Post by Richard Smith
Richard

Thanks both - John

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, Nathaniel's son John was born around 1720. _His_ son (also John)
had been born 1746. The "lawfully begotten" initially sounds interesting
- suggests Nathaniel either thought (or knew!) his son put it around a
bit, or was afraid of pretenders - but was probably standard wording.

As you say, it was just standard wording. And so far as the law at the
time went, a child born to a woman while she was married was presumed to
be her husband's child. If Nathaniel had doubts about the illegitimacy
of John's son and wanted to bar him from inheriting the house, he would
have made this desire much clearer (even if the reason was not stated).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
The memorandum reads like a contingency regarding a bequest to John in
the event that John has died heirless at the point he would receive the

See above. Grandson John had issue (in 1783), so would have been alive
at Nat's will writing. I'm _guessing_ the "for want of Heirs" refers to
daughter Mary, who had married 1753-4-27 (will dated 1753-5-21), though
there's confusion over surnames.

It really doesn't it makes sense for the "for want of heirs" to be
referring to Mary dying for want of heirs. If she died, with or without
heirs, she couldn't inherit the bequest.

If Nathaniel's son John had a son who was still alive in 1753, then I
think Nathaniel was contemplating the possibility that both might
predecease Nathaniel's wife. Maybe the grandson John was a sickly
child. Maybe Nathaniel was dying during an epidemic and was concerned
other family members might succumb. Or maybe he was just being
abundantly cautious over what was likely his most valuable asset. If
John's wife had died or was obviously not going to bear any more
children, this might have strengthen Nathaniel's motivation for making
such a provision.

If it is John's death without heirs that Nathaniel is considering, but
if so, it must be some other person listed in the will besides Mary and
Nathaniel's wife. However the only other person mentioned is a
granddaughter, Elizabeth Pott, and the will already addresses the
possibility that she might die young. Unless we are to suppose a whole
section was omitted from the will which included a major bequest to
another otherwise unmentioned person, I think it must be John.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
The problem is, the natural reading is to assume an "it" refers to the
previous bequest – here the shilling to Mary. But that can't be. It
has to be a bequest to John or it wouldn't make sense to consider the
possibility of his dying heirless. And one wouldn't make contingencies
for a shilling – it would just pass into the residue of the estate.

Yes, I'd thought the shilling - even in 1753! - seemed rather mean;
however, as she'd only married 5 weeks earlier, Ian's suggestion that
she'd already had a "marriage portion" sounds very plausible.

Bequests of a shilling were extremely common. They were included to
stop a relative from challenging the will on the grounds that they were
omitted due to a clerical error or a momentary oversight on the part of
the testator. The underlying motivation varies, but commonly it was
because they had already received their share of the inheritance,
whether as a marriage portion (another word for a dowry) or otherwise.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
So the memorandum must pertain to a substantial bequest that John was
to receive at some future date. Reading the will, it seems fairly
clear to me that this must be "my lands which I now live upon called by
the name Presfield house in the Parish of Hanbury" which John was to
receive upon the death of his mother.

Sounds right. (Though I read it as Prospect house.)

I've taken another look and am pretty certain the first four letters are
'Pres' and the last three are 'eld'. This clerk doesn't write his p's
with ascenders, but does give his f's quite pronounced loops, so I think
the fifth letter must be an 'f'. The sixth letter seems to have been
overwritten: possibly an 'e' changed to an 'i'?

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
To summarise: Presfield House was left to to his wife for life, and
then to his son John Blurton. However, if John predeceased his mother
without leaving surviving legitimate descendants, then the house went
to his daughter Mary Adderly.

Right. (They had at least one more child - Elizabetha, baptised 1722
[probably that a Latinised form of Elizabeth] - but I don't know if she
was still alive by 1753. Or, if she was, if married.)

If I were you, I'd investigate the possibility that she married a man
named Pott, had a daughter named Elizabeth (perhaps the only surviving
child), and had died by 1753. Given her probable age at death, she may
well have died in childbirth.

Richard

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:19:58 +0100, Richard Smith

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, Nathaniel's son John was born around 1720. _His_ son (also John)
had been born 1746. The "lawfully begotten" initially sounds interesting
- suggests Nathaniel either thought (or knew!) his son put it around a
bit, or was afraid of pretenders - but was probably standard wording.

As you say, it was just standard wording. And so far as the law at the
time went, a child born to a woman while she was married was presumed to
be her husband's child.

That still applies now in case anyone is considering a more recent
event.

Post by Richard Smith
If Nathaniel had doubts about the illegitimacy
of John's son and wanted to bar him from inheriting the house, he would
have made this desire much clearer (even if the reason was not stated).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
The memorandum reads like a contingency regarding a bequest to John in
the event that John has died heirless at the point he would receive the

See above. Grandson John had issue (in 1783), so would have been alive
at Nat's will writing. I'm _guessing_ the "for want of Heirs" refers to
daughter Mary, who had married 1753-4-27 (will dated 1753-5-21), though
there's confusion over surnames.

It really doesn't it makes sense for the "for want of heirs" to be
referring to Mary dying for want of heirs. If she died, with or without
heirs, she couldn't inherit the bequest.
If Nathaniel's son John had a son who was still alive in 1753, then I
think Nathaniel was contemplating the possibility that both might
predecease Nathaniel's wife. Maybe the grandson John was a sickly
child. Maybe Nathaniel was dying during an epidemic and was concerned
other family members might succumb. Or maybe he was just being
abundantly cautious over what was likely his most valuable asset. If
John's wife had died or was obviously not going to bear any more
children, this might have strengthen Nathaniel's motivation for making
such a provision.
If it is John's death without heirs that Nathaniel is considering, but
if so, it must be some other person listed in the will besides Mary and
Nathaniel's wife. However the only other person mentioned is a
granddaughter, Elizabeth Pott, and the will already addresses the
possibility that she might die young. Unless we are to suppose a whole
section was omitted from the will which included a major bequest to
another otherwise unmentioned person, I think it must be John.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
The problem is, the natural reading is to assume an "it" refers to the
previous bequest – here the shilling to Mary. But that can't be. It
has to be a bequest to John or it wouldn't make sense to consider the
possibility of his dying heirless. And one wouldn't make contingencies
for a shilling – it would just pass into the residue of the estate.

Yes, I'd thought the shilling - even in 1753! - seemed rather mean;
however, as she'd only married 5 weeks earlier, Ian's suggestion that
she'd already had a "marriage portion" sounds very plausible.

Bequests of a shilling were extremely common. They were included to
stop a relative from challenging the will on the grounds that they were
omitted due to a clerical error or a momentary oversight on the part of
the testator. The underlying motivation varies, but commonly it was
because they had already received their share of the inheritance,
whether as a marriage portion (another word for a dowry) or otherwise.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
So the memorandum must pertain to a substantial bequest that John was
to receive at some future date. Reading the will, it seems fairly
clear to me that this must be "my lands which I now live upon called by
the name Presfield house in the Parish of Hanbury" which John was to
receive upon the death of his mother.

Sounds right. (Though I read it as Prospect house.)

I've taken another look and am pretty certain the first four letters are
'Pres' and the last three are 'eld'. This clerk doesn't write his p's
with ascenders, but does give his f's quite pronounced loops, so I think
the fifth letter must be an 'f'. The sixth letter seems to have been
overwritten: possibly an 'e' changed to an 'i'?

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
To summarise: Presfield House was left to to his wife for life, and
then to his son John Blurton. However, if John predeceased his mother
without leaving surviving legitimate descendants, then the house went
to his daughter Mary Adderly.

Right. (They had at least one more child - Elizabetha, baptised 1722
[probably that a Latinised form of Elizabeth] - but I don't know if she
was still alive by 1753. Or, if she was, if married.)

If I were you, I'd investigate the possibility that she married a man
named Pott, had a daughter named Elizabeth (perhaps the only surviving
child), and had died by 1753. Given her probable age at death, she may
well have died in childbirth.
Richard

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, Nathaniel's son John was born around 1720. _His_ son (also John)
had been born 1746. The "lawfully begotten" initially sounds interesting
- suggests Nathaniel either thought (or knew!) his son put it around a
bit, or was afraid of pretenders - but was probably standard wording.

As you say, it was just standard wording. And so far as the law at the
time went, a child born to a woman while she was married was presumed
to be her husband's child. If Nathaniel had doubts about the
illegitimacy of John's son and wanted to bar him from inheriting the
house, he would have made this desire much clearer (even if the reason
was not stated).

Yes, since John Junior had been born 1746, Nathaniel would have been
quite aware of him by 1753! And, as you say, if any doubts, would have
been specific about him.

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
The memorandum reads like a contingency regarding a bequest to John in
the event that John has died heirless at the point he would receive the

See above. Grandson John had issue (in 1783), so would have been alive
at Nat's will writing. I'm _guessing_ the "for want of Heirs" refers to
daughter Mary, who had married 1753-4-27 (will dated 1753-5-21), though
there's confusion over surnames.

It really doesn't it makes sense for the "for want of heirs" to be
referring to Mary dying for want of heirs. If she died, with or
without heirs, she couldn't inherit the bequest.

True.

Post by Richard Smith
If Nathaniel's son John had a son who was still alive in 1753, then I

He was - married 1772, child 1783.

Post by Richard Smith
think Nathaniel was contemplating the possibility that both might
predecease Nathaniel's wife. Maybe the grandson John was a sickly

No, see above.

Post by Richard Smith
child. Maybe Nathaniel was dying during an epidemic and was concerned
other family members might succumb. Or maybe he was just being
abundantly cautious over what was likely his most valuable asset. If

Seems most likely.

Post by Richard Smith
John's wife had died or was obviously not going to bear any more
children, this might have strengthen Nathaniel's motivation for making
such a provision.
If it is John's death without heirs that Nathaniel is considering, but
if so, it must be some other person listed in the will besides Mary and
Nathaniel's wife. However the only other person mentioned is a
granddaughter, Elizabeth Pott, and the will already addresses the
possibility that she might die young. Unless we are to suppose a whole
section was omitted from the will which included a major bequest to
another otherwise unmentioned person, I think it must be John.

My mind is coming apart - or I thought it was! I, too, remembered
mention of a granddaughter, but couldn't see it in my transcript! On
re-examining the original, I'd missed two lines: "Item I give and
bequeath" starting two lines, two lines apart. So easily done!
[]

Post by Richard Smith
Bequests of a shilling were extremely common. They were included to
stop a relative from challenging the will on the grounds that they were
omitted due to a clerical error or a momentary oversight on the part of

Interesting to know; thanks. I didn't know such challenges were common.
(Though why not say "nothing"? he bequeaths "or else nothing" to the
granddaughter if she doesn't reach 21.)

Post by Richard Smith
the testator. The underlying motivation varies, but commonly it was
because they had already received their share of the inheritance,
whether as a marriage portion (another word for a dowry) or otherwise.

(As she'd married five weeks earlier, that seems likeliest.)
[]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sounds right. (Though I read it as Prospect house.)

I've taken another look and am pretty certain the first four letters
are 'Pres' and the last three are 'eld'. This clerk doesn't write his
p's with ascenders, but does give his f's quite pronounced loops, so I
think the fifth letter must be an 'f'. The sixth letter seems to have
been overwritten: possibly an 'e' changed to an 'i'?

I've looked too, and I think you're right. Those backward "e"s that are
so easily misread as an "o" ...

Post by Richard Smith

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
To summarise: Presfield House was left to to his wife for life, and
then to his son John Blurton. However, if John predeceased his mother
without leaving surviving legitimate descendants, then the house went
to his daughter Mary Adderly.

Right. (They had at least one more child - Elizabetha, baptised 1722
[probably that a Latinised form of Elizabeth] - but I don't know if she
was still alive by 1753. Or, if she was, if married.)

If I were you, I'd investigate the possibility that she married a man
named Pott, had a daughter named Elizabeth (perhaps the only surviving
child), and had died by 1753. Given her probable age at death, she may
well have died in childbirth.
Richard

Hmm. Elizabetha Blurton baptised 1722-11-22 Leigh. On FindMyPast, the
only Staffordshire marriage of an Eliz* Blurton-plus-variants 1744 ±10
is one 1739-10-28 in Uttoxeter (6.0 miles' walk from Leigh so
plausible), but to Samuel Rawlins. So via another daughter perhaps ...
Hm, 10 Eliz* Pot* bap Staffordshire 1743±10:
1735 to Thomas & Anne, Yoxall (Nat & Mary married 1719 Leigh)
1744 to John & Elizabeth, Yoxall (14.7 miles' walk from Leigh)
same again
1739 to Hugh, Yoxall
same again
1742 to John & Alice, Colwich (11.0 miles)
1748 to John & Eliz, Yoxall
same again
1750 to John & Ann, Meerbrook (20.0 miles)
1750 to John & Ann, Rushton Spencer (20.9)
All of those would be under 21 in 1753.

Of course, the records I'm using are almost certainly incomplete.

I don't know why I'm pursuing this - they're not my ancestors! His
(Nathanel's) great-grandson (James Woolrich 1801-1869) married the
_sister_ (Harriet Leese 1804-1858) of my great-great-great-grandmother
(Catharine Leese 1801-1886). I guess I just like puzzles,

If anyone shares any of these ancestors, of course, do get in touch!

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
Maybe the grandson John was a sickly

No, see above.

The fact he lived well into adulthood doesn't mean he wasn't sickly as a
child. I had a great aunt who was apparently almost constantly ill as a
child, often very severely, and not expected to live. She died a decade
or two ago, aged 98.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Richard Smith
Bequests of a shilling were extremely common. They were included to
stop a relative from challenging the will on the grounds that they were
omitted due to a clerical error or a momentary oversight on the part of

Interesting to know; thanks. I didn't know such challenges were common.
(Though why not say "nothing"? he bequeaths "or else nothing" to the
granddaughter if she doesn't reach 21.)

Let me quote Sir William Blackstone, whose 'Commentaries of the Laws of
England' was the definitive legal text book of the latter half of the
18th century, and is still regularly cited by the courts today:

"The Romans were also wont to set aside testaments as being
/inofficiosa/, deficient in natural duty, if they disinherited or
totally passed by (without assigning a true and sufficient reason) any
of the children of the testator. But if the child had any legacy,
though ever so small, it was proof that the testator had not lost his
memory or his reason, which otherwise the law presumed; by was then
supposed to have acted for some substantial cause: and in such case no
/querela inofficiosi testasmenti/ was allowed. Hence probably has
arised that groundless vulgar error, of the necessity of leaving the
heir a shilling or some other express legacy, in order to disinherit him
effecually; whereas the law of England makes no such constrained
suppositions of forgetfulness or insanity; and therefore though the heir
or next of kin be totally omitted, it admits no /querela inofficiosi/,
to set aside such a testament." [Blackstone's /Commentaries/, II
502-3 (1825 edition).]

So it seems it was a misunderstanding. It was commonly but wrongly
thought that the will could be overturned if a child was not given some
sort of bequest, however small.

Richard

[Ian Goddard]

So it seems it was a misunderstanding.  It was commonly but wrongly
thought that the will could be overturned if a child was not given some
sort of bequest, however small.

I suspect that, Blackstone notwithstanding, nobody was going to take a
risk. It is, of course, the origin of the saying "cut off with a shilling".

It could also be made explicit why the bequest was only a gesture. As
an example my 5x ggfather to 4x "Also to Jonathan my Son I give five
Shillings he being portioned before."

Ian

[Richard Smith]

Post by Ian Goddard

So it seems it was a misunderstanding.  It was commonly but wrongly
thought that the will could be overturned if a child was not given some
sort of bequest, however small.

I suspect that, Blackstone notwithstanding, nobody was going to take a
risk.

Blackstone's /Commentaries/ wasn't published until the 1760s, though it
is based substantially on a series of lectures he delivered in the
1750s. Probably the material on testaments was not yet written by 1753,
and even once it had been published, it will have taken time to have
become well-known. But, in my experience, one shilling bequests had
largely stopped by the end of the 18th century, and I feel sure that
Blackstone's assurance that they were not necessary was a large part of
the reason.

Richard