GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-04 > 1271129970


From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: New Light on the English Ancestry of Edward Bullock, Gent.,of Dorchester, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:53:10 -0400
References: <mailman.141.1271129739.20086.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


In article <>,
M Sjostrom <> wrote:

> it is intriguing that the man left his somewhat remarkable property, to that
> Elizabeth Cooper and her mason husband.
>
> In those days, it was relatively rare that bulks of inheritances were
> -successfully- willed to strangers in blood. People sinply did not do wills
> in favor of strangers that often.
> This might mean that, say, Elizabeth Cooper, could have been a kinswoman of
> Edward.
> And in the case of stranger, if there were close relatives in blood, such
> wills were frequently targets of big inheritance litigation, as well as
> often the will got quashed, in favir of blood kin.
>
> If Elizabeth Cooper were sister of Edward, then the namesake Elizabeth
> Clements possibly could not have been. But, Elizabeth Cooper could have been
> a niece, and then the namesake-obstacle would not exist. Is anything known
> how long Elizabeth Clements even lived?
>
> an avenue could be to check how possibly those Coopers were related to this
> guy.
>
> then, was there any lawsuit about inheritance of Arborfield, Barkham, and
> such, after this guy?

Well, Edward didn't possess Arborfield & Barkham, as his uncle had sold
those manors back in 1589. Therefore the fact that he willed them to
some folks who took care of him, the better part of a century later, is
a rather problematic sort of thanks. Perhaps the other stuff amounted
to a more substantive remembrance.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/

This thread: