GENBRIT-L Archives

From: Eve McLaughlin <>
Subject: Re: Meaning of 'Real Estate' in 1730 Will
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:04:14 +0000

>> If your quote is comprehensive, then George got a block of land in
>>Heyford, as specified, but not anything not otherwise listed which his
>>father owned elsewhere: the widow got her 'thirds' a one third share
>>in the whole estate for life, which was correct under the law.
>>Sometimes testators offered a money substitute for this dower, if the
>>widow agreed to give up claims to her thirds..
>>>
>>>John does not get a mention in the Real Estate stakes.
>> he would not need to if the land was either copyhold or freehold
>>entailed to the eldest son. This went to him automatically, as did his
>>mother's thirds after her death. The land in Brampton was presumably
>>all transferred by this means.
>Can we assume the land was in Brampton? I have tried tracking down any
>manorial records but no success yet. Any other suggestions please? Is it
>likely that John is the elder son? He is mentioned first in the will.

this seems likely - in which case, much of the estate comes to him
anyway, under normal arrngements. Is he the exeutor too - which would
mean that anything unspecified would be in his hands. Is the father
paying land tax in Ch Brampton? He lives there, so he must be living in
something. Manorial records - the local CRO should know where they
are or if not, the Register of Manorial Documents at Quality Court,
Chancery Lane

--
Eve McLaughlin

Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

This thread:

• Re: Meaning of 'Real Estate' in 1730 Will by Eve McLaughlin <>