Sons, sons in law, inheritance, questions about a 17th family [closed]

Question

Lora Grey https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Grey-1590   was the heiress to Kingston Maurward  in Dorset. She married George Pitt of Stratfield Saye and died herself as a very wealthy woman. I've adopted her and working on linking her to her family https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Grey-82

This post  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/BlnLlFAG4Zc  helped me in my research and I agree that on the face of it the writers conclusion is correct

ie:Angell Grey had by his first wife Katherine Stawell, a son George and a daughter Katherine. His wife Katherine died in 1633 and in the same year he Grace Fulwood (an heiress). This couple had two sons Audley and Henry. George had no male heirs ( but a daughter Christian who inherited Netherstowie which had been bought by father Angell)  Audley also had no male heirs  his daughter , Lora inherited Kingston Maurward

 My questions.

1. The visitation and other pedigrees suggest George and Audley were both sons of Katherine  . Hutchins links all 4 children to Katherine in the pedigree. The dates don't fit for that.  If Audley was 28 at  his marriage in 1666 then he was the son of Grace Fulwood.  Hutchins also writes that the manors of Apsley, and that of Fordhall co. Warwick came upon the partition of Fullwood's estate  to Grace, his 5th d and co-heir , wife of Angel Grey. Mrs Lora Pitt sold it in 1698 . But  and this is what seems odd, in Grace's will she calls all three sons ''son in lawe'' If Audley and probably Henry  are her sons,  then why call them son in lawe?
2. George appears to be the first son and heir  to his father . He  had no surviving male heirs yet his daughter Christian (d 1747) inherited the manor and estate at Nether Stowie when he died in 1672. The second son Audley presumably at this point inherited Kingston Maurward which his female heir Lora in turn inherited . The property brought to the family from Grace Fulwood was also inherited by Lora.  Why didn't Audley inherit both Nether Stowie  and Kingston Maurward on George's death? ( I suspect there is info missing here about how Angell divided his estate)

More detailed chronology .

1602 George Grey  was buried at Stinsford on 28th December 1602

1602-3 Angell Grey  his son was born (aet 20 in 1623 visitation)

1627 Angell Grey bought  Nether Stowie in Somerset.

 1628 c  Angell Grey married Katherine  Stawell ( no exact date,  marriage from visitation of 1623 Dorset + Hutchins + arms in manor house dated to about 1630)

 1632/3, January, Katherine Grey buried at Stinsford . On the same day dau Katherine baptised. The burial and bapt are taken from a 19th C transcript of the register  by Rev Bartelot, it reads 10 Jan 1633 Katharine wife of Worshipful Mr Angell GRAYE. (This page in the register is now completely degraded and  the entry cannot be found /read).

1633, Angell Grey marries Grace Fulwood in St Martin in the Fields London.

1657 George Grey , styled of Kingston Maulward,   marries Lucy Purefoy in Shalstone , Bucks

1658 ?Lucy buried ( The 19thc transcript of the Stinsford reg records Lucys burial + a baptism of daughter on same day. I think I can just about recognise  the baptism in the register but not burial.Page very torn The date of the  burial may be  incorrect as  according to the same transcript George and Lucy have two more daughters baptised at Stinsford in 1662 and 1663, the baptism in 1663 is part legible but  the name of wife is on a torn off bit)

1664 baptism  of daughter of George and Susanna Grey (legible in register) all these daughters die

1666  Audley styled 'of Nether Stowie'  had a licence to marry Margaret Trevelyan. In the  transcipt of the licence it says that he was abt 28 years old (giving him a dob of 1638) ie after Katherines death and father Angell's marriage to Grace Fulwood.

1669 25 Apr  Christian daughter of George and Susanna GREY Esq  bapt Stinsford

1670 Angell Grey  dies, buried Stinsford  leaving will

His will is quite brief and the settlement of the 2 manors is not mentioned ( Wife Grace gets most including £50 in gold and £50 in silver + jewels, plate household stuff) George, is executor and  appears to be main heir (special family jewels and plate)  Son  Audley gets the Swan Inn on a 99 year lease,  or  3 lives, himself and his 2 brothers.   Henry gets a tenement in Innswood  for 99 years or the three lives.   George gets  the corn house, shambles and market cross in Netherstowie  (not leased)  George's children George and Christian get £100 at 21 or marriage.

1672 12 Jun  Henry son of Audley and Margaret GREY   Esq bapt

1672 3 Aug   Grace wife of Angel GREY   Esq   buried Stinsford leaving will

Her will gives George £5  and his daughter (Grace's god daugher) £10, Henry £20, Audley's wife Margaret £5 and Audeley's son George £5. After bequests to servants and the poor in both Stinsford and Nether Stowie , all the rest of her estate, went to Audley who was executor.

Throughout the will she terms all three sons as  ''sons in lawe.''

1672 10 Dec  George  GREY Esq.   Esq buried Stinsford

1673 3 Apr 1673 Audelay son of Audelay and Margaret GREY Esq  (Stinsford reg)buried (has two more sons bapt and buried at Stinsford)

1675 14 Dec  Lora daughter of Audelay and Margaret GREY Esq bapt (Stinsford reg)

 No idea where Henry went no burial no marriage. He presumably must have died.

Comments

A couple of points, I have seen cases where the distribution of property was listed in a separate document to the 'will'; but it may just be that he had already assigned the property before then. Is there a Victoria County History for Dorset? That might provide some answers.

The fact that the daughters ended up with the properties tells us that they were probably in fee simple (and certainly not tail male).

No idea on the son-in-lawe part.

The family home - The Old Manor House, Kingston Maurward - still exists

---

Thanks Chris, as  I was writing the question I began to think  that the old  family estate in Dorset  must have been settled in tail male to  keep it in the family but that the manor of NetherStowie, being a newer acquisition,  was bequeathed in toto to George and therefore his heirs whether male or female. If Henry were dead when Audley died, his daughter presumably  would be the only heir left

(I know Kingston Maurward well. It's less than 5 miles from where I live.I think that  the  Elizabethan manor house is much more beautiful than the grander  house George Pitt built  . The estate including the Pitt house is home to the  local agricultural college but they open the grounds to the public. I added a photo of the manor to George Grey's profile but there are far better photos on these estate agents details http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27557721.html )

---

In that case, have you looked at D/PIT/T766 at the Dorset History Centre?

And D1599/2/1.

---

Thanks,

The  second one , the trust deed is interesting as it's from the right date. Where do the Churchills fit in I wonder? (there is a relationship  by marriage between Joane Meller wife of George Grey and  Eleanor Churchill  but these local families are  all very interrelated and that's part of the fascination.) I'll have a look and see if I can make head or tail of it. Sadly though I can pay  to take photos of records I am prohibited  from putting  them on the internet

---

Chris is correct about property sometimes being treated in a separate document. The actual phrase "Will and Testament" refers to this. The testament was individual bequests based on moveable items (including leaseholds) plus money. It only happened through the executors. The will was for land and property and was assumed to take place immediately, subject to the will be proved and it conforming with inheritance law.

Can we see a copy of Grace's will? I presume not under some copyright insanity. Wills were taken pretty seriously especially by the better-off. Even if Grace were illiterate it would have been read back and signed off. There's no way sons could be described as sons in lawe (which I agree with Janet included step-sons).

---

I believe that the copyright on wills is actually vested in the descendant  so probably belongs to someone in the Pitt-Rivers family. The  image though came  originally from the National Archives via Ancestry so the rights are probably very blurred. I've copied a small section.'for research purposes'. It's here on the transcript of her will. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Will_of_Grace_Grey_widow_of_Somerset_1672

---

Grace  was the stepmother, son in law was therefore the correct term

See this memorial https://www.flickr.com/photos/52219527@N00/25894000050/ which is apparently at Stinsford so the answer was literally close to hand! (although I will have to wait to get a photo  as have no car at moment and its a 4 mile walk each way )

Something  is wrong with either Audleys age at marriage or the date of Katherine Stawell's  death together with the date of  Angells Marriage to Grace .  The second would mean there were two errors. The simplest solution is that  Audley was older than 28 (38?))  at marriage and the 28 is  the transcription error.   I'll see what more I can find.

Am transcribing Lora's will and one of the trustees is Sir Edward Stawell which confirms some sort of connection.

Thanks to every one for their contributions, it's kept me thinking.

 

---

It's nice to find some concrete (or should that be stone?) proof ;)

---

And digging on the internet finds even more gems. The info on the civil war on the flikr photo  lead me to find this  A hoard of silver buried at the time of the civil war, each piece engraved with a AG surmounted by a C (which might or might not be Angell and Catherine's silver )https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/237552

 

---

How fascinating! A proper treasure hunt that you're on.

Answer 1

Up through the 19th century, the term "son (or daughter) in law" was commonly used to refer to "step-son (daughter)."

I find it a lot in the UK censuses, and it used to confuse me til I figured it out.

Comments

But the point is that only George should have been her step-son, based on the evidence to date.

---

exactly, that's the problem and where it doesn't quite hang together

---

I'm presuming that the will was dictated to someone, and Ludy didn't write it herself?  Then maybe if George was mentioned first in the will and he was her 'son in lawe' then perhaps the transcriber made a mistake with the other sons?

Or depending when the will was written in relation to when Lucy died, perhaps she wasn't quite thinking clearly?

Because we have so few records from this period, we all (myself included) tend to over analyse what is there, when it could just be a mistake. :)

---

And what we have (I haven't looked at it myself) would be a copy of the original. It wasn't uncommon for the clerk to get fixated with a name or a phrase.

---

I'm not really sure about how the PCC copies of wills ended up in the format we see. They certainly are copies put together after probate was granted.  Before now I've found a few words and sometimes even larger sections repeated where  the scribe  seems to have lost his place . Most of the 'originals' were probably also written by clerks/lawyers (just as today)  This lady signed her name, but that is no guarantee that she could read the will herself. I think that John is probably right to suggest it's a simple mistake in the will; otherwise all the other bits of evidence have to be reexplained.

Now to tackle Loras will; it's 15 pages long so I may be a while!

---

see above. They were her stepsons.