Genealogy Chat

I need to work out the meaning of a few phrases in a 1719 Will. Is there anyone out there who can help me with this?
I am trying to establish if the son Robbart benefited from the will. On the face of it, it appears not: he certainly wasn't amongst the 28 persons named to receive money ... but one or two phrases puzzle me and I wonder if they MEAN that he got EVERYTHING apart from the specific bequests? This information would greatly help us to link the correct father and son.
I am unsure about putting the entire will on the internet because of copyright restrictions but I hope that if I just transcribe excerpts and blank out surnames, there will not be a problem?
In the following excerpts, the phrases in brackets are the ones I am unsure about and I would greatly appreciate other members opinions as to their precise meaning. ... I have left the spelling as in the original Will.

"William - - - - - , I sett and bequeath my soal unto god all mighty and my body to be berryed with in the ground deassondly; ..... maybe deassondly is decently? ..... and my son Robbartt - - - - - to be my exsecittor [ and to enter all that ever I have; ] an for my daugh elizabeth mary - - - - - - , the sume of tenpound and John - - - - - and his wife either of them on shiling, and their thre childer twelfpence apeise ......... "

After this there follows a list of small bequests of one shilling or twelve pence to 26 people and one bequest of two 'ginnes' I assume 42 shillings?

Then there is a further reference to Robbartt, the son:-

".... and the said Robbartt [ is to have thre years time to paide in ]"

.. "and to ENTER all that ever I have" ... What can it mean?

Thanks for thinking
Carole

To Enter would be to make a list or inventory of everything he owned
and pay all the bequests within 3 years.

Looks like Robbart was charged with realising all his father's assets and then ensuring they went to the named beneficiaries within 3 years (wonder what happened if he took longer). Presumably, apart from expenses, he appears to have got nothing.

Thank you for that Lindsey
but I remain unclear if Robbartt got anything (or everything) ... do you think, any wording, in the excerpts, tells us that Robbartt actually got 'the lot' then paid the named beneficiaries from HIS inheritance? As I said, as I read it there is no positive statement indicating either way; but I don't know much about wills.
Carole

You beat me to it Major!!
Interesting!!
If we have the correct William and Robbartt - father and son connection - Robbartt was only ten when the will was drawn up. Again, if we have it right, William died a few days later but the will was not proved until 1724.

Is there any mention of a wife? Someone must have been the residuary beneficiary (the person who gets the remainder once all the specific bequests have been made). If no-one is mentioned as the residuary beneficiary, then certainly under today's laws (with a few exceptions which would not have been in effect in 1719) it would have gone to his wife and failing that, shared equally between his children. Maybe since Robert is relatively young, he assumes his mother will look after him, although he obviously does not regard him as too young to be appointed executor. Or maybe Robert is set to inherit from a grandparent and father knows this. Given that Robert is appointed executor, I feel sure that he would not have been "cut off without a penny".

Tina

Would this be a will from Scotland? Only I know that all property automatically went to the eldest son in Scotland unless a will declared otherwise.

Hi Tina and Janet
I can deal with both.
No it was not in Scotland. There is no location attached to the will but it was found in Durham and the family being researched, lived in County Durham in 1719. As far as we know Robbartt was the only son. He was the only person in the will referred to as such.
Very little is known about William. There appears to be no wife. There have been several contenders and a school of thought thinks he was married twice: Elizabeth Mary being the product of his first marriage and Robbartt (much younger) of his second. But other than a few possible mentions here and there, there is nothing to substantiate this!!
A curious twist. ... If you read the excerpts you will have noted that one beneficiary received two guineas. This was a woman named Mary Heaviside and as far as we know, not related, which makes it seem odd that she got SO MUCH more than other obvious relatives? Ten years later, Robbartt married a a Mary Heaviside. I can't work that one out either!
Carole

There must have been 'things' as well? .. Possibly a property? No one with money to leave, has no possessions. ... I don't think they were rich but William may have written the will himself and one of the witnesses, certainly a relative, was able to sign his name with a flourish; (the other however did put a cross which was signed over by the will writer) so I don't think they were poor and illiterate.
Grandparents? I wouldn't know. I would dearly love to find them. This family is proving to be a brick wall to even the most dedicated and experienced researchers.

Curious - I recently saw the will of my ancestor, dating from 1772. It specifies that he (George, yeoman farmer) was leaving 10 shillings to his son John (who I believe to have been a priest - presumably it could have been some sort of tithe or contribution to the church from George?) and that the rest of his property - he seems to have owned land in two different towns - was to be sold and the profits divided between his son Joseph, his daughter Mary and Mary's husband James.

But no other money is mentioned, so I am thinking that the ten shillings was perhaps all George had in actual cash (the will was dated 5 days before he was buried) and the rest of his assets were his lands.

Another will I have seen - from much later (1848) - actually specifies that the dead person is leaving his property, money, farming equipment, items from the dairy etc, it is all itemised, but this will that belonged to George was quite vague by comparison.

Hmmm.
Well; William certainly wasn't giving much away about himself!
I too have seen other old wills where quite mundane items are itemised and promised; like items of clothing and cookware plus items suggesting the testators job and often a property in a recognisable location etc.
William gave away thirteen pounds eight shillings and that was that!

Carole

I keep wondering how likely it was for a 10 year old (Robarrt) to be named as an Executor, let alone as a sole Executor!

Chris

Hi Carole,

I have struggled with several wills from my Welsh ancestors. In one of them everything apart from specific bequests is left to the youngest son as the father had alredy provided for the elder children when they grew up and I understand this was fairly common practice.

In another, everything was left to the two sons with the proviso that their mother should provide for their schooling and keep until they were 16. The wife and the eldest son were executors. This will was actually provded twice - once just after he died, and then when the eldest son reached 16 several years later. It may be the case that your will was not proved until Robbartt was 16.

As William doesn't talk about the disposal of any other property or land, I would have thought that the residue of his estate was left to Robbartt - is the word definitely ENTER or could it be 'inherit' or 'benefit' or something like that - I know the spellings are weird.

Thanks Chris
That too has worried me for a long time!!!
I think we are all assuming that a Robbartt Musgrave born 1710 is the Robbartt in question .... but this is only in the absence of a more likely contender. He certainly ticks most boxes but age is a problem!!!!
Was there a minimum age for being an executor? I have been trying to find out but haven't had any luck so far.
Carole

Hi Tiger Lil (same name as my delicious cat - no offence!!)

No it is definitely 'enter'. I have tried very hard to wish it to be something more useful. The handwriting is remarkably clear and apart from the letters s which predictably look like f, the spelling isn't too bad and the document is quite easy to read.

and Chris - a further thought
Because William died two days after making his Will could be a total coincidence. It was mid winter. ( Dec 17th he made the will and he died two days later) A sniffle could quickly and easily have turned into something nasty and incurable pre antibiotics? .. He might have thought that he still had several years and that Robbartt would be old enough to handle the situation by the time he died. The lack of an obvious gift to his son could have been because Robbartt was promised to this Mary Heaviside and leaving her two guineas was in effect leaving money to Robbartt; plus a way of ensuring that the marriage went through? PURE SPECULATION !!!! ... of the worst sort ... born of desperation and exasperation... I don't think we will ever know. Maddening when a 300 year old document is handed to you on a plate and you can't gain anything useful from it!!

Hi Carole,

Mine's an old family nickname, but it's nice to know I share it with your lovely cat.

Sorry I don't have any more suggestions - it's a real puzzle and I wish I could help. But good luck and I hope you manage to sort it out eventually. I am glad your will is readable - I also have one from around the same period and it was much easier than the one I have from 1830 which took me over a month - the Welsh place names didn't help though.

Hi Carole,

I have been puzzled by an early 1700's Will too where a man made his wife and one of his sons Executors of his Will - said son and his mother were left the tenancy of the family farm. I can understand him passing the tenancy to his son as obviously he would be under the care of his mother until he came of age, but can't quite get my head round an 8 year old being an Executor of a Will - I'd have thought you'd have to be 21 or over

Maggie
The more I think about it, the more I think someone has the DOB of Robert wrong!!! I have to say, I hadn't checked it personally, as this particular quest has many reputable researchers and they all have plumped for the 1710 date, so unusually for me, I just accepted this as a fact. William was buried two days after he wrote the will, so realistically he must have been pretty sick when he wrote it! In such circumstances I can't believe that he would have made such a young child sole executor!
Back to the drawing board I think?
This doesn't answer my question, did Robert benefit from the will .... but if he was older it would be more understandable if he didn't, as he might well already be reasonably established.

Could I jump in here, havent read it all, too busy at work. But with wills I have noticed that the giving of a shilling to a "beneficiary" is a way of stopping any misunderstanding or argument after the death.

That is, if people leave off a name, that person could contest the will, but if he includes them and gives them just a shilling then clearly he was compos mentis and had decided who should receive the bulk of the monies(obviously NOT the ones who get a shilling).

OH and re scanning bits of docs, if you go over to Family Tree Forum and the Research board, you can upload any parts of docs for others to see and read for you.

Thank you Heather
About the shillings - I had read something about that before ... but William wrote something odd. .... The bequests for adults were referred to as one shilling, but those to the children were referred to as twelve pence apiece.

Maybe he thought the children would be more excited by the bigger number, but dates suggest William was dying so I,m surprised he had time for such niceties?