Hi List,
I am going over the Will of Gregory FIENNES, 10th Dacre. In this Will
he mentions his Heirs and also the Heirs of Anne (nee Sackville). He
is talking in the present tense. Did Heirs mean the same thing back
in 1594 as it does today or could that also mean siblings? It also
appears that he gave away a lot of things to his "heirs" before this
last Will was written so these articles, i.e. land, money or other
possessions, could not be contested. I am still trying to prove that
Mary Fiennes who married Frank Wheatley (Wheatleigh) was his daughter.
Gregory and Anne did have a daughter of their own but she died very
young before this last Will was written so these "heirs" would not
concern her. I am just tossing some theories about here. I have info
on the Wheatleigh family that was written in the early 1900s and was
researched by a Consulate for USA and he conveniently skipped Mary's
parents but said that she was the granddaughter of Thomas FIENNES and
Mary NEVILLE. I can quote the intro to the book and the page where
Mary is listed if anyone is interested.
Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net
Meaning of Heirs
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Meaning of Heirs
Doesn't heirs simply mean "those who are to inherit" ?
So if someone makes a will, everyone in it is an heir right?
Also then as now, if a person died without issue, his/her parents or siblings (if parents were dead) would be heirs even if there was not a will.
Right?
Will
So if someone makes a will, everyone in it is an heir right?
Also then as now, if a person died without issue, his/her parents or siblings (if parents were dead) would be heirs even if there was not a will.
Right?
Will
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Meaning of Heirs
In message of 26 Aug, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
(What follows is solely about English medieval practices.)
The major point is that one must distinguish between "Real" and
"Personal" property:
Real property was land. It was not, until the 16th century, possible
to leave land to anyone. The next person to hold the land on the death
of the current holder was entirely dependent on feudal practices. For
land that was held directly from the king, there were public hearings,
"IPM" = Inquisitio post mortem (inquiry after death), to determine who
was the new holder. The new holder was described as the heir. There
were rules to determine who was the holders. If there were sons, the
eldest was the heir; if there were only daughters, they were co-heirs
sharing the land equally. Land, as now, included the buildings on it.
Personal property was everything else: the cash, the possessions, the
wheat, the materials of the trade. This could be the subject of a will
and indeed the beneficiaries could be called heirs, but I somehow doubt
that they were.
If you get a copy of Testamenta Vetusta, it is a collection of
medieval wills and they are solely about the Personal property: there
is no mention of the land holdings. (http://www.archivecdbooks.com have it
on CDROM.)
There were traditions that the widow had to be provided for. Usually
this was done by allowing her to occupy some of the property held by the
"heir" until she died. But if her husband had no land, then a common
practice was a third for the widow, a third for the children and an
third at the discretion of the testator. It was the practice in
wealthier families to agree a contract, called a "marriage settlement",
at marriage and this would include provisions for the wife if she was
widowed.
Doubtless the practices in other countries were different.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In a message dated 25/08/04 22:41:04 GMT Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
Doesn't heirs simply mean "those who are to inherit" ?
So if someone makes a will, everyone in it is an heir right?
Also then as now, if a person died without issue, his/her parents or
siblings (if parents were dead) would be heirs even if there was
not a will.
Right?
Will
No, its a little more complicated. The heir or heirs was the
person(s) _entitled_ to inherit. Most property automatically went
to the eldest son (or if only daus, to them equally) notwithstanding
the testators wishes. But the testator may have acquired property
for which he could devise freely. Some property (especially in
Kent) automatically went to all sons equally. Then there is the
widows dowry, she was entitled to one third although I am not quite
sure a third of what — presumably the testators free estate, i.e.
disregarding the property which automatically went to the heir. For
London wills there seems to have been special rules as I have often
seen the phrase "per the custom of this city" put after bequest.
I expect someone can explain the rules much more succinctly than I
have done here.
(What follows is solely about English medieval practices.)
The major point is that one must distinguish between "Real" and
"Personal" property:
Real property was land. It was not, until the 16th century, possible
to leave land to anyone. The next person to hold the land on the death
of the current holder was entirely dependent on feudal practices. For
land that was held directly from the king, there were public hearings,
"IPM" = Inquisitio post mortem (inquiry after death), to determine who
was the new holder. The new holder was described as the heir. There
were rules to determine who was the holders. If there were sons, the
eldest was the heir; if there were only daughters, they were co-heirs
sharing the land equally. Land, as now, included the buildings on it.
Personal property was everything else: the cash, the possessions, the
wheat, the materials of the trade. This could be the subject of a will
and indeed the beneficiaries could be called heirs, but I somehow doubt
that they were.
If you get a copy of Testamenta Vetusta, it is a collection of
medieval wills and they are solely about the Personal property: there
is no mention of the land holdings. (http://www.archivecdbooks.com have it
on CDROM.)
There were traditions that the widow had to be provided for. Usually
this was done by allowing her to occupy some of the property held by the
"heir" until she died. But if her husband had no land, then a common
practice was a third for the widow, a third for the children and an
third at the discretion of the testator. It was the practice in
wealthier families to agree a contract, called a "marriage settlement",
at marriage and this would include provisions for the wife if she was
widowed.
Doubtless the practices in other countries were different.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Meaning of Heirs
Dear Newsgroup,
I believe that Heirs then and now refers to all
such Persons or groups of persons ( Such as the poor or the parish church)
listed within the will of a deceased person who are to recieve something, On
Occasion Persons have been listed in a will so as to specify that They`re to
recieve no portion of the estate along with those Who are to recieve an
inheritance. Sometimes an inheritance is left to the Heirs of someome else such as a
relative of the deceased or a business partner. No two wills are precisely
the same, but in general They run along the same general lines.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I believe that Heirs then and now refers to all
such Persons or groups of persons ( Such as the poor or the parish church)
listed within the will of a deceased person who are to recieve something, On
Occasion Persons have been listed in a will so as to specify that They`re to
recieve no portion of the estate along with those Who are to recieve an
inheritance. Sometimes an inheritance is left to the Heirs of someome else such as a
relative of the deceased or a business partner. No two wills are precisely
the same, but in general They run along the same general lines.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Meaning of Heirs
In a message dated 25/08/04 22:41:04 GMT Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
No, its a little more complicated. The heir or heirs was the person(s)
_entitled_ to inherit. Most property automatically went to the eldest son (or if
only daus, to them equally) notwithstanding the testators wishes. But the
testator may have acquired property for which he could devise freely. Some
property (especially in Kent) automatically went to all sons equally. Then there is
the widows dowry, she was entitled to one third although I am not quite sure
a third of what — presumably the testators free estate, i.e. disregarding the
property which automatically went to the heir. For London wills there seems
to have been special rules as I have often seen the phrase "per the custom of
this city" put after bequest.
I expect someone can explain the rules much more succinctly than I have done
here.
Adrian
writes:
Doesn't heirs simply mean "those who are to inherit" ?
So if someone makes a will, everyone in it is an heir right?
Also then as now, if a person died without issue, his/her parents or
siblings (if parents were dead) would be heirs even if there was not a will.
Right?
Will
No, its a little more complicated. The heir or heirs was the person(s)
_entitled_ to inherit. Most property automatically went to the eldest son (or if
only daus, to them equally) notwithstanding the testators wishes. But the
testator may have acquired property for which he could devise freely. Some
property (especially in Kent) automatically went to all sons equally. Then there is
the widows dowry, she was entitled to one third although I am not quite sure
a third of what — presumably the testators free estate, i.e. disregarding the
property which automatically went to the heir. For London wills there seems
to have been special rules as I have often seen the phrase "per the custom of
this city" put after bequest.
I expect someone can explain the rules much more succinctly than I have done
here.
Adrian
-
Ed Mann
Re: Meaning of Heirs
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Meaning of Heirs
Yes. Literally, those who inherit if the deceased died intestate, without a
will.
No. They are beneficiaries.
It's more complicated, and has often been modified by statute, on a
state-by-state basis.
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Meaning of Heirs
Doesn't heirs simply mean "those who are to inherit" ?
Yes. Literally, those who inherit if the deceased died intestate, without a
will.
So if someone makes a will, everyone in it is an heir right?
No. They are beneficiaries.
Also then as now, if a person died without issue, his/her parents or
siblings (if parents were dead) would be heirs even if there was not a will.
Right?
It's more complicated, and has often been modified by statute, on a
state-by-state basis.
Will
-
Ed Mann
Re: Meaning of Heirs
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Meaning of Heirs
The third word in the line above should be dower. There's also curtesy,
which is a related concept, although I can't remember how for the life of
me.
There's a definition at:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c157.htm
Many states have repalced this with what's called an elective share.
A spouse in Florida may elect to take 30% of their deceased spouse's estate,
regardless of what the will says.
A pretermitted spouse (marriage after the will wqas written) may get 50%.
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Meaning of Heirs
In a message dated 25/08/04 22:41:04 GMT Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
Doesn't heirs simply mean "those who are to inherit" ?
So if someone makes a will, everyone in it is an heir right?
Also then as now, if a person died without issue, his/her parents or
siblings (if parents were dead) would be heirs even if there was not a
will.
Right?
Will
No, its a little more complicated. The heir or heirs was the person(s)
_entitled_ to inherit. Most property automatically went to the eldest son
(or if
only daus, to them equally) notwithstanding the testators wishes. But the
testator may have acquired property for which he could devise freely.
Some
property (especially in Kent) automatically went to all sons equally.
Then there is
the widows dowry, she was entitled to one third although I am not quite
sure
The third word in the line above should be dower. There's also curtesy,
which is a related concept, although I can't remember how for the life of
me.
There's a definition at:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c157.htm
Many states have repalced this with what's called an elective share.
A spouse in Florida may elect to take 30% of their deceased spouse's estate,
regardless of what the will says.
A pretermitted spouse (marriage after the will wqas written) may get 50%.
a third of what — presumably the testators free estate, i.e. disregarding
the
property which automatically went to the heir. For London wills there
seems
to have been special rules as I have often seen the phrase "per the custom
of
this city" put after bequest.
I expect someone can explain the rules much more succinctly than I have
done
here.
Adrian
-
Cece
Re: Meaning of Heirs
macduff@infionline.net ("Sue J") wrote in message news:<000101c48ad4$533bbbe0$0100a8c0@SUSAN01>...
An heir is a person who will inherit automatically.
Heir, heir of the body, heir male, heir male of the body.
"Heir of the body" is a descendant. "Heir male of the body" is a son
(of a son of a son). Heir male is 1) eldest son (then his eldest
son), 2) eldest brother (then his eldest son), 3) father's brother, 4)
grandfather's brother, 5)...
"Heir" is 1) eldest son (then his eldest son), 2) next son (until
there are no more sons with descendants), 3) all the daughters
together (for partible things -- like land). For more detail, may I
suggest reading Bracton? http://hlsl.law.harvard.edu/bracton/ The
discussion of heirs begins in Vol. 2, p. 185. Now, Bracton is early
13th century (Henry III), and things changed -- but not completely.
Britton followed (Edward I), and then Littleton (~ Roses), but I
haven't found either on the Web yet. It was not the done thing to
give away all one's property, to disinherit one's heir -- the heir
could recover.
Anyway, this is about land. Before Henry VIII created a glut of land,
land could not be left by will; only personalty, movables, could.
Land went to the heir -- which heir was determined by the agreement,
paperwork, that granted the land. Originally, land went to a person
"and his heirs and assigns." ("Assigns" means those to whom he
"aliened" the land, gave it or sold it.) Later, the more restrictive
verbiage was used -- and sometimes, the original wording was
interpreted as the more restrictive. (Pretty much starting under
Edward III -- gee, I wonder why he didn't like women to have any
power?)
"Property" is English legalese for "real property." American
"personal property" is, in British, "personalty." According to
Bracton, a man's will could cover only one-third of his personalty --
one-third automatically went to his heir, and one-third automatically
went to his widow. If he was a widower, he could bequeath a half.
"Dower" is the right of a widow. If no other arrangements were made
at the time of the wedding ("at the church door"), she gets a life
interest in one-third of her husband's estate -- sometimes this meant
what he'd owned on the day they were married (if he owned nothing yet,
his parents were supposed to say that her dower would be provided),
sometimes it meant what he'd owned when he died.
Cece
Hi List,
I am going over the Will of Gregory FIENNES, 10th Dacre. In this Will
he mentions his Heirs and also the Heirs of Anne (nee Sackville). He
is talking in the present tense. Did Heirs mean the same thing back
in 1594 as it does today or could that also mean siblings? It also
appears that he gave away a lot of things to his "heirs" before this
last Will was written so these articles, i.e. land, money or other
possessions, could not be contested. I am still trying to prove that
Mary Fiennes who married Frank Wheatley (Wheatleigh) was his daughter.
Gregory and Anne did have a daughter of their own but she died very
young before this last Will was written so these "heirs" would not
concern her. I am just tossing some theories about here. I have info
on the Wheatleigh family that was written in the early 1900s and was
researched by a Consulate for USA and he conveniently skipped Mary's
parents but said that she was the granddaughter of Thomas FIENNES and
Mary NEVILLE. I can quote the intro to the book and the page where
Mary is listed if anyone is interested.
Sue in Florida macduff@infionline.net
An heir is a person who will inherit automatically.
Heir, heir of the body, heir male, heir male of the body.
"Heir of the body" is a descendant. "Heir male of the body" is a son
(of a son of a son). Heir male is 1) eldest son (then his eldest
son), 2) eldest brother (then his eldest son), 3) father's brother, 4)
grandfather's brother, 5)...
"Heir" is 1) eldest son (then his eldest son), 2) next son (until
there are no more sons with descendants), 3) all the daughters
together (for partible things -- like land). For more detail, may I
suggest reading Bracton? http://hlsl.law.harvard.edu/bracton/ The
discussion of heirs begins in Vol. 2, p. 185. Now, Bracton is early
13th century (Henry III), and things changed -- but not completely.
Britton followed (Edward I), and then Littleton (~ Roses), but I
haven't found either on the Web yet. It was not the done thing to
give away all one's property, to disinherit one's heir -- the heir
could recover.
Anyway, this is about land. Before Henry VIII created a glut of land,
land could not be left by will; only personalty, movables, could.
Land went to the heir -- which heir was determined by the agreement,
paperwork, that granted the land. Originally, land went to a person
"and his heirs and assigns." ("Assigns" means those to whom he
"aliened" the land, gave it or sold it.) Later, the more restrictive
verbiage was used -- and sometimes, the original wording was
interpreted as the more restrictive. (Pretty much starting under
Edward III -- gee, I wonder why he didn't like women to have any
power?)
"Property" is English legalese for "real property." American
"personal property" is, in British, "personalty." According to
Bracton, a man's will could cover only one-third of his personalty --
one-third automatically went to his heir, and one-third automatically
went to his widow. If he was a widower, he could bequeath a half.
"Dower" is the right of a widow. If no other arrangements were made
at the time of the wedding ("at the church door"), she gets a life
interest in one-third of her husband's estate -- sometimes this meant
what he'd owned on the day they were married (if he owned nothing yet,
his parents were supposed to say that her dower would be provided),
sometimes it meant what he'd owned when he died.
Cece