Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Chris Dickinson

Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 18 jun 2006 12:54:54

Here's a little peculiarity, again from the Lamplugh family, but somewhat
out of period! It illustrates three of the themes covered recently on this
newsgroup.

John Lamplugh (1618-1669) of Lamplugh Hall in Lamplugh married his cousin
Frances Lamplugh of Ribton. Their son Thomas Lamplugh (1656-1734) of
Lamplugh Hall, M.P., married Frances Moline, a granddaughter of the
Lamplughs of Dovenby.

Their children Thomas, John, Frances, Mary, Frances and Ann died as infants.
Two daughters (Margaret, below, and Elizabeth) survived into adulthood, but
neither had children that survived them. The last male of the Lamplughs of
Lamplugh, Joshua, was described in the parish burial register in 1739 as 'an
Idiot'.

So much for inbreeding!

The peculiarity is the daughter Margaret Lamplugh. It's best to do this a a
chronology:

14 July 1731
Margaret Lamplugh of Lamplugh makes her will as 'Margaret Lamplugh', with
her mother as her heir and executor. One of the witnesses who swears is
Richard Brisco.

15 July 1731
Margaret marries Richard Brisco.

21 July 1731
She dies.

24 July 1731
She is buried, according to the parish register: 'Mrs Margaret Brisco, d. of
Thomas Lamplugh, Esq. and wife of Richard Brisco of Crofton, Esq. departed
this life, July 21'.

5 August 1731
The administration bond describes her as Margt Lamplugh (late ye Wife of
Rich. Brisco Esqre) late of Lamplugh. Her mother is administrator.

19 October 1731
The inventory of her goods describes her as Mrs Margaret Brisco

29 January 1750/1
Ricard Brisco of Lamplugh Hall, Esq., is buried.


So here you have a lady whose will was still considered as valid after her
death, even though her husband was still alive, and who (at least in one
document) is still described by her maiden name.

It may not be coincidental that the court official who proved the will in
August was a William Brisco.

Chris

Gjest

Re: Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jun 2006 14:27:17

Chris Dickinson schrieb:

Here's a little peculiarity, again from the Lamplugh family, but somewhat
out of period! It illustrates three of the themes covered recently on this
newsgroup.

John Lamplugh (1618-1669) of Lamplugh Hall in Lamplugh married his cousin
Frances Lamplugh of Ribton. Their son Thomas Lamplugh (1656-1734) of
Lamplugh Hall, M.P., married Frances Moline, a granddaughter of the
Lamplughs of Dovenby.

Their children Thomas, John, Frances, Mary, Frances and Ann died as infants.
Two daughters (Margaret, below, and Elizabeth) survived into adulthood, but
neither had children that survived them. The last male of the Lamplughs of
Lamplugh, Joshua, was described in the parish burial register in 1739 as 'an
Idiot'.

So much for inbreeding!

The peculiarity is the daughter Margaret Lamplugh. It's best to do this a a
chronology:

14 July 1731
Margaret Lamplugh of Lamplugh makes her will as 'Margaret Lamplugh', with
her mother as her heir and executor. One of the witnesses who swears is
Richard Brisco.

15 July 1731
Margaret marries Richard Brisco.

21 July 1731
She dies.

24 July 1731
She is buried, according to the parish register: 'Mrs Margaret Brisco, d. of
Thomas Lamplugh, Esq. and wife of Richard Brisco of Crofton, Esq. departed
this life, July 21'.

5 August 1731
The administration bond describes her as Margt Lamplugh (late ye Wife of
Rich. Brisco Esqre) late of Lamplugh. Her mother is administrator.

Ah, here's the rub: the will was not proved. Although it was validly
made by an unmarried woman, there was no grant of probate; rather there
was an administration order. Given that one day separated the making
of the will and the marriage, the will was clearly made in anticipation
of marriage - which, at least under modern probate law, would prevent
it having automatically been invalidated upon the marriage - and quite
likely a marriage settlement was involved as well. Presumably the
administration bond reflects the (maiden) name under which the will was
made, as the will was likely annexed to the grant to ensure that the
administratrix carried out its provisions as far as possible. The
question remains: why was there an administration rather than probate?
19 October 1731
The inventory of her goods describes her as Mrs Margaret Brisco

29 January 1750/1
Ricard Brisco of Lamplugh Hall, Esq., is buried.


So here you have a lady whose will was still considered as valid after her
death, even though her husband was still alive, and who (at least in one
document) is still described by her maiden name.

It may not be coincidental that the court official who proved the will in
August was a William Brisco.

Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 18 jun 2006 19:21:51

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

<snip>
Ah, here's the rub: the will was not proved. Although it was validly
made by an unmarried woman, there was no grant of probate; rather there
was an administration order
snip



Ah, my use of the term 'administration bond' may have been misleading. I
didn't mean a letter of administration. The will was proved.

You may prefer to call this a probate bond or a probate obligation - the
bond whereby the administrator/executor agrees under threat of penalty to
execute and perform the will, pay debts and legacies, provide an inventory,
etc..

Chris

RJM

Re: Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Legg inn av RJM » 18 jun 2006 19:59:30

Chris Dickinson wrote:
Here's a little peculiarity, again from the Lamplugh family, but somewhat
out of period! It illustrates three of the themes covered recently on this
newsgroup.

John Lamplugh (1618-1669) of Lamplugh Hall in Lamplugh married his cousin
Frances Lamplugh of Ribton. Their son Thomas Lamplugh (1656-1734) of
Lamplugh Hall, M.P., married Frances Moline, a granddaughter of the
Lamplughs of Dovenby.

Their children Thomas, John, Frances, Mary, Frances and Ann died as infants.
Two daughters (Margaret, below, and Elizabeth) survived into adulthood, but
neither had children that survived them. The last male of the Lamplughs of
Lamplugh, Joshua, was described in the parish burial register in 1739 as 'an
Idiot'.

So much for inbreeding!

The peculiarity is the daughter Margaret Lamplugh. It's best to do this a a
chronology:

14 July 1731
Margaret Lamplugh of Lamplugh makes her will as 'Margaret Lamplugh', with
her mother as her heir and executor. One of the witnesses who swears is
Richard Brisco.

15 July 1731
Margaret marries Richard Brisco.

21 July 1731
She dies.

24 July 1731
She is buried, according to the parish register: 'Mrs Margaret Brisco, d. of
Thomas Lamplugh, Esq. and wife of Richard Brisco of Crofton, Esq. departed
this life, July 21'.

5 August 1731
The administration bond describes her as Margt Lamplugh (late ye Wife of
Rich. Brisco Esqre) late of Lamplugh. Her mother is administrator.

19 October 1731
The inventory of her goods describes her as Mrs Margaret Brisco

29 January 1750/1
Ricard Brisco of Lamplugh Hall, Esq., is buried.


So here you have a lady whose will was still considered as valid after her
death, even though her husband was still alive, and who (at least in one
document) is still described by her maiden name.

It may not be coincidental that the court official who proved the will in
August was a William Brisco.

Chris

This seems to me to be a very significant will. AFAIK, this is the
first will by a married woman (in the recent flurry of activity on this
subject) in which the executor is not the husband. In addition there is
no explicit agreement of the husband, although this may be implicit in
being a witness.

As far as validity is concerned, if Blackstone is correct, a will made
prior to marriage would not be valid under common law once she married.
This was only changed in the 19th century.

On the other hand (if Mary Ritter Beard is to be believed), the equity
courts would uphold marriage settlements even where their provisions
did not conform to common law.

As for the church courts, I suspect that in general they were not
concerned with whether or not the testator owned and could dispose of
the property in the will - at least not as far as the validity of the
will was concerned. If there was no objection, I suspect a will would
be proved provided it conformed to the "standard" rules - who could
witness, etc.

We now have quite a few examples. I suspect there are a lot more out
there.

John Matthews

Gjest

Re: Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jun 2006 20:04:04

Chris Dickinson schrieb:

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

snip
Ah, here's the rub: the will was not proved. Although it was validly
made by an unmarried woman, there was no grant of probate; rather there
was an administration order
snip


Ah, my use of the term 'administration bond' may have been misleading. I
didn't mean a letter of administration. The will was proved.

Ah, your reference to her mother as "administrator" also threw me!

You may prefer to call this a probate bond or a probate obligation - the
bond whereby the administrator/executor agrees under threat of penalty to
execute and perform the will, pay debts and legacies, provide an inventory,
etc..

Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Married wills, maiden names and inbreeding

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 18 jun 2006 21:58:58

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:


Ah, my use of the term 'administration bond' may have been misleading. I
didn't mean a letter of administration. The will was proved.

Ah, your reference to her mother as "administrator" also threw me!


Yes, you are quite right. That's a bad habit I've just realised I've got
into - and must be confusing. Sorry about that.

Hmm, now I need a good term for someone who could be either executor or
administrator.

Chris

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»