IPMs: When the heir is an aunt

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Matthew Hovius

IPMs: When the heir is an aunt

Legg inn av Matthew Hovius » 05 mar 2005 09:52:48

I'd appreciate list members' comments as to precisely how much can be
inferred from a particular Inquisition Post Mortem. At the IPM, the
heir of the deceased was declared to be his paternal aunt (amita). The
deceased was aged 55 at the time of death so his aunt may well have
been older, and in fact it seems she herself died only 2 years later.

By declaring this fellow's only heir to be an aunt, the IPM seems to
imply:

*That he had no (living) siblings
*That he had no (living) nieces or nephews
*That he had no (living) uncles

Can it further be inferred that he had no cousins through a deceased
uncle, that is to say, that any uncles had by this time also died
childless? Would a living aunt normally take precedence over cousins in
the male line, cousins who were the children of a deceased uncle of the
individual who was the subject of the IPM? Or would the cousins only
have been mentioned this matter if they had been legally of interest as
heirs male, while it appears none of the subject's property was
entailed to heirs male?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Chris Phillips

Re: When the heir is an aunt

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 05 mar 2005 10:15:37

Matthew Hovius wrote:
By declaring this fellow's only heir to be an aunt, the IPM seems to
imply:

*That he had no (living) siblings
*That he had no (living) nieces or nephews
*That he had no (living) uncles

Can it further be inferred that he had no cousins through a deceased
uncle, that is to say, that any uncles had by this time also died
childless? Would a living aunt normally take precedence over cousins in
the male line, cousins who were the children of a deceased uncle of the
individual who was the subject of the IPM? Or would the cousins only
have been mentioned this matter if they had been legally of interest as
heirs male, while it appears none of the subject's property was
entailed to heirs male?

The issue of a deceased uncle would inherit before a living aunt, so if the
record is correct you can infer there were no such cousins.

HOWEVER, it's worth bearing in mind that half-blood siblings and their
issue, and likewise half-blood aunts and uncles and their issues, would be
excluded from inheritance anyway. And of course, if the lands in question
had been inherited by the deceased through his mother, any uncles, aunts and
cousins on his father's side would be excluded (and vice versa).

Chris Phillips

Cece

Re: IPMs: When the heir is an aunt

Legg inn av Cece » 05 mar 2005 17:17:55

"Matthew Hovius" <dominus_matthaeus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1110012768.160452.87080@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
I'd appreciate list members' comments as to precisely how much can be
inferred from a particular Inquisition Post Mortem. At the IPM, the
heir of the deceased was declared to be his paternal aunt (amita). The
deceased was aged 55 at the time of death so his aunt may well have
been older, and in fact it seems she herself died only 2 years later.

By declaring this fellow's only heir to be an aunt, the IPM seems to
imply:

*That he had no (living) siblings
*That he had no (living) nieces or nephews
*That he had no (living) uncles

Can it further be inferred that he had no cousins through a deceased
uncle, that is to say, that any uncles had by this time also died
childless? Would a living aunt normally take precedence over cousins in
the male line, cousins who were the children of a deceased uncle of the
individual who was the subject of the IPM? Or would the cousins only
have been mentioned this matter if they had been legally of interest as
heirs male, while it appears none of the subject's property was
entailed to heirs male?

Thanks for your thoughts.

It may well depend on where and when. Medieval English law, yes. No
entail in medieval England, though -- not until Henry VIII; "property"
(real property, land) could not be left by will, nor could all of a
person's property be aliened ("given" away) during his lifetime as
that would be depriving his heir.

For English law as of the 1230s, see
http://hlsl.law.harvard.edu/bracton/ The next lawbook was written in
the time of Edward III (IIRC).

Cece

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»