Base Knight? - Sir John Somerset, grandfather of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The book, Cases in the High Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, edited by
Richard Cust and Andrew Hopper, is a recent publication of the
Harleian Society. Published in 2006, as New Series, Volume 18, the
book is a treasure trove of English culture and society for the time
period in question. Of the numerous cases presented in this volume,
one case concerns Sir John Somerset, a younger son of Sir Henry
Somerset, Earl and Marquess of Worcester, Duke of Somerset (died
1646). More importantly to some members of the newsgroup, Sir John
Somerset is perhaps better known as the paternal grandfather of the
New World immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset, wife successively of Col.
John Lowther and Capt. Richard Smith, the latter of Maryland.

For interest's sake, I've transcribed below the court case which
concerns Sir John Somerset. I have only left off the references to
the original documents for the case, which references are provided by
the editors. This case is important genealogically, as it documents
the residence of Sir John Somerset as being Pauntley, Gloucestershire,
which information was not provided by the otherwise well written
account of the Somerset family found in Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of
England 1 (1812): 222–243 (sub Somerset, Duke of Beaufort). I might
point out that the date of the lawsuit immediately precedes the
English Civil War. The lawsuit reflects some of the many tensions
that then afflicted English society.

"604 SOMERSET v. GOOD. Sir John Somerset of Pauntley, co. Gloucester,
knt. v. William Good of Redmarley, co. Worcester, yeoman. February
1636/7 - March 1640.

Somerset, a younger son of the Earl of Worcester, complained that Good
had declared in summer 1636, in Good's house, that he 'was a base
knight and as base a conditioned knight as any was in England, and
that he did mainteyne one Clarke to defraud and deceave the country.'
Good, the younger brother of Worcestershire J.P. Thomas Good esq,
maintained that Somerset had forgiven him, 'albeit he had byn informed
that Good had given out ill language against him ... for that he had
received his information in that behalfe from jailebirds and undone
fellows.' The prosecution was driven forward, Good insisted, by
Charles Harbert, an attorney who had been struck off the roll of the
Court of Common Pleas, and Edward Clarke, Somerset's bailiff. Harbert
had declared that he was determined 'to rid Good out of the countrie'
and Clarke that 'if Sir John Somersett would not prosecute Good in
this courte and undo him, he should look for another bailiff'; and the
two men had procured several dishonest witnesses, including 'a common
affidavit man' and a notorious drunkard who had a grievance against
Good for putting him in the stocks when he had been constable.

Proceedings were under way by February 1637 and Somerset's witnesses
were examined in May-June. Good's witnesses were examined by a
commission of Thomas Baldwyn, clerk, Thomas Cooke, esq, and Thomas
Coxe, gent, on 17 January 1637/8 at the King's Arms Inn, at Ledbury,
Herefordshire. In spite of producing several local gentlemen to
testify for him, including his brother Henry, Good lost the case and
Somerset was awarded £40 in damages and £30 in expenses. The money
had been paid by November 1638. Good's submission was at first
arranged for 2 June 1639 at the market cross in Newent,
Gloucestershire, but was altered to be performed before the judges of
the assizes in the town hall of Gloucester on 13 March 1639/40. He
duly apologized for his 'false and scandalous words', promising 'to
behave myself ever hereafter with all due observance and respect
towards Sir John Somersett and all the gentry of this kingdome.'" END
OF QUOTE.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Derek Howard]

On Mar 22, 5:57 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The book, Cases in the High Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, edited by
> Richard Cust and Andrew Hopper, is a recent publication of the
> Harleian Society.  Published in 2006, as New Series, Volume 18, the
> book is a treasure trove of English culture and society for the time
> period in question.  Of the numerous cases presented in this volume,
> one case concerns Sir John Somerset, a younger son of Sir Henry
> Somerset, Earl and Marquess of Worcester, Duke of Somerset (died
> 1646).  More importantly to some members of the newsgroup, Sir John
> Somerset is perhaps better known as the paternal grandfather of the
> New World immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset, wife successively of Col.
> John Lowther and Capt. Richard Smith, the latter of Maryland.
>
> For interest's sake, I've transcribed below the court case which

> concerns Sir John Somerset.  <snip>

Could I suggest it might be easier to copy and paste the data base
link:
<http://www.court-of-chivalry.bham.ac.uk/>
or the case link:
<http://arts-itsee.bham.ac.uk/AnaServer?chivalry+0+start.anv
+case=604> ?

Derek Howard

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is another interesting contemporary account of Sir John Somerset
[grandfather of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset] published in
Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus 6
(1880): 641. This item indicates that Sir John Somerset visited the
English College of Rome in 1649-1650.

Sub 1649: “Somerset, John, the Lord, December 20. This most noble
pilgrim came to us and remained until February 14 following, affording
a remarkable example to all the College for his constant habit of
prayer, spiritual conversations, and humility. On leaving us, he
thought of proceeding to Jerusalem.” END OF QUOTE.

The above material may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=u_8UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA641

Besides his visit to Rome in 1649-50, Sir John Somerset also visited
the English College at Rome in 1647. See the following weblink for
that record:

http://books.google.com/books?id=u_8UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA636

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I might add that Sir John Somerset also visited the English College at
Rome in 1651, where he stayed from 29 March until 16 April. See

Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus 6

(1880): 644, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=u_8UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA641

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Previous accounts of the Somerset family in print have identified the
immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland, as the daughter of
Charles Somerset, Esq. (will proved 1712), of Acton Park, Middlesex,
and Ross, Herefordshire, by his 2nd wife, Katherine Baskerville.

There is a good account of the immediate family of Katherine
Baskerville, 2nd wife of Charles Somerset, published in Duncumb et
al., Collections towards the History & Antiquities of Hereford 3
(1882): 71–73, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=t4gcAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA71

The material in this source identifies Katherine Baskerville as the
daughter of Walter Baskerville, of Wormsley, Herefordshire, a Popish
recusant, by Judith, daughter of George Vaughan.

Following the death of Katherine Baskerville, Charles Somerset, Esq.
married before 1683 as his 3rd wife Elizabeth Goodyer, daughter of
John Goodyer, Esq., of Burghope, Herefordshire, by Anne, daughter of
John Morgan [see Burke, Gen. & Heraldic Hist. of the Extinct & Dormant
Baronetcies (1844): 220–221 (sub Goodere).].

Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 1 (1812): 222–243 (sub Somerset,

Duke of Beaufort) indicates that Charles Somerset, Esq., and his 3rd
wife, Elizabeth Goodyer, had one daughter, Anne, who died in her
infancy. However, it appears that Charles Somerset actually had five
daughters by his 3rd marriage as follows:

1. Anna Caroline Somerset, born c.1690, died 1770, married 1731
Richard Brickendon [see Miscellanea XI (Catholic Rec. Soc. 19)
(1917): 173; Catholic Rec. Soc. 38 (1941): 77].
2. Anne Somerset, born c.1694, died 1764 [see Miscellanea XI
(Catholic Rec. Soc. 19) (1917): 173].
3. Frances Somerset, married Henry Scudamore (died 1737), of Monmouth
Forge and Treworgan, Herefordshire [see Miscellanea XI (Catholic Rec.
Soc. 19) (1917): 173; Misc. Gen. et Heraldica 5th Ser. 4 (1920–22): 22–
25].
4. Clare Somerset, married 1731 John Southcote [see Miscellanea XI
(Catholic Rec. Soc. 19) (1917): 161-62, 173].
5. Henrietta Somerset, married 1732 John Frederick [see Miscellanea XI
(Catholic Rec. Soc. 19) (1917): 161-62, 173].

Further evidence of the parentage of these five sisters is afforded by
a black and white monument against the east wall of the small chancel
in the church of Pauntley, Gloucestershire which reads as follows:

Source: http://www.forest-of-dean.net/downloads/Bigland_Transcripts/Pauntley_Bigland_Transcripts.pdf

"Anne Somerset, daughter of the Hon. Charles Somerset, Esq. and grand
daughter of
the Right Honourable Lord John Somerset, died 4th March, 1764, aged
70, having by
her will ordered this monument to be erected to her memory.

Anna Caroline Brickendine, sister of the above Anne Somerset, died 5th
Nov. 1770,
aged 80.

Henry Blackford Scudamore (late of Newent), Esq. nephew to the above
ladies, died
31st July, 1795, aged 52." END OF QUOTE.

The following two records pertain to the settlement of the will of
Anne Somerset, of Hereford, proved in 1764. Anne Somerset was the
younger half-sister of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset. The two
records below can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Overview.tcl&dsqSearch=%28AltRefNo%3D%27D2700%27%29&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqPos=22

445 Sale of the Pauntley Court estate (on the death of Carolina
Brickenden, sister of Ann Somerset deceased, in 1770)
Includes copy will of Ann Somerset, Hereford, spinster, proved 1764,
bequeathing the proceeds from the sale of her share of the Pauntley
Court estate (after the death of her sister Carolina Brickenden) to
the Duke of Beaufort; valuation of the Pauntley Court estate by Silas
Blandford, 1772; rental and valuations, 1745, 1765; abstract of the
Duke's title (1731)-c.1770; accounts and correspondence; memorandum of
agreement for sale to [Henry Blackford] Scudamore
[107.5.32] 1768-1772 Gloucestershire Archives

446 Pauntley Court estate
Reciting that the conveyance of a fifth share in the estate by the
Duke of Beaufort (under the will of Ann Somerset, deceased), 1773, was
missing; the present deed has been executed to secure the title to the
whole estate
Includes abstract of title (1731)-1818; case for counsel's opinion,
1817
(Henry Somerset; Charles Somerset; Ann Somerset and her sister; Duke
of Beaufort; Scudamore family; John Stokes; David Ricardo)
[Fc 1/12] (1731)-1818 Gloucestershire Archives

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my earlier post today, I find that the A2A Catalogue
contains a passing reference to the will of Caroline Brickenden, the
half-sister of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset. According to the
record below, Caroline Brickenden's will is dated 1768. However,
Miscellanea XI (Catholic Rec. Soc. 19) (1917): 173 indicates that
Caroline Brickenden's will was actually dated 20 April 1769, proved 4
Jan. 1771.

"Herefordshire Record Office, Records of the Rotherwas Estate & the
Bodenham Family
AD2/II/54 1740-1788
Contents:
Bundle of deeds and papers relating to the conveyance of a farm by
John Russell to Charles Bodenham
Including copy wills of Elizabeth Somersett of Hereford, 1740 and
Caroline Brickenden of Hereford, 1768." END OF QUOTE.

+ + + + + + + + +
As indicated by the A2A Catalogue record above, reference is also made
to the will of "Elizabeth Somersett, of Hereford" dated 1740. I take
it that this would be the will of Elizabeth (Goodyer) Somerset, the
step-mother of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset. The wills for
Caroline Brickenden and Elizabeth Somerset are both listed in the
modern online PCC will index:

Description Will of The Honorable Elizabeth Somerset, Widow of
Hereford, Herefordshire
Date 26 July 1748
Catalogue reference PROB 11/763 links to the Catalogue
Dept Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
Series Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate
Jurisdictions: Will Registers
Piece Name of Register: Strahan Quire Numbers: 190 - 238

Description Will of Carolina Brickenden, Widow of Hereford ,
Herefordshire
Date 24 January 1771
Catalogue reference PROB 11/963 links to the Catalogue
Dept Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
Series Prerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate
Jurisdictions: Will Registers
Piece Name of Register: Trevor Quire Number: 1 - 48

The will of Elizabeth Somerset should confirm that she was the mother
of Charles Somerset's five younger daughters, Anna Carolina
[Brickenden], Anne, Frances [Scudamore], Clare [Southcote], and
Henrietta [Frederick].

Elsewhere I find that Brown, Abstracts of Somersetshire Wills, 5th
Ser. (1890): 9 contains the abstract of a PCC will for a Charles
Somerset dated 1707, proved 1710, in which he names his mother (name
not given), his grandmother Child (apparently deceased), and his
sister, Henrietta Somerset (named as executrix). Without further
particulars, it is not possible to tell if this is the will of Charles
Somerset, the full brother of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset.
But if it is the right Charles Somerset, then it would appear that one
of his grandmothers, either Mary Arundell and Judith Vaughan, married
a Mr. Child sometime before 1707. My guess is that this is a
different Charles Somerset.

Lastly, there is a short biography of Henry Somerset, the uncle of
Mary Johanna Somerset, published in Foley, Records of the English
Province of the Society of Jesus 4 (1878): 475–476. This may be

viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9CQeAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA475

According to Henry Somerset's own account, he was born at Odiham,
Hampshire and was aged 22 in 1651. He states he was educated at
Paris, where he resided partly with his parents, and partly in the
College of St. Barbara and similar houses.

This information indicates that [Lord] John Somerset, the grandfather
of the immigrant, Mary Johanna Somerset, was a resident in Paris
sometime before 1651. John Somerset was evidently dead sometime
before 1660, when the manor of Acton, Middlesex was restored to his
heirs [see VCH Middlesex 7 (1982): 16–23].

[Wjhonson]

Rebecca Childe, daughter of Josiah Childe of Wanstead, co Essex, 1st Bnt, PW by his second wife Mary Atwood. Rebecca married Charles Somerset, Marquess of Worcester (from 1682)

One of their children was Henrietta Somerset

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

This week I had the opportunity to examine the will of the immigrant,
Mary Johanna Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., proved 1712
((P.C.C. 102 Barnes), and that of her step-mother, Elizabeth (Goodere)
Somerset, proved 1748 (P.C.C. 227 Strahan). These two wills taken
together with the various records below drawn from the the online A2A
Catalogue, conclusively establish that the immigrant, Mary Johanna
Somerset, had one-half-brother, John Somerset, Esq., and six half-
sisters, Anna Caroline (wife of Richard Brickenden, Esq.), Clare (wife
of John Southcote, Esq.), Jane (wife of _____ Hooper), Frances (wife
of Henry Scudamore, Esq.), Anne (unmarried), and Henrietta Maria (wife
of John Frederick, Esq.).

The A2A Catalogue has several records which pertain to the immediate
family of Mary Johanna Somerset. The first document below concerns
the capital messuage called Over Ross, Herefordshire, which property
was owned by Mary Johanna Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq.
(died 1712). Reference is made in that record to the wills of Charles
Somerset, Esq., his widow, Elizabeth (Goodere) Somerset, and Elizabeth
(Goodere) Somerset's father, John Goodere.

The next set of documents below (Items #2-12) concern the descent of
the manor of Acton, Middlesex, which property was evidently inherited
in 1709 by Mary Johanna Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., on
the death of his nephew, Edward Maria Somerset. The first in this
series of documents is dated 1712 and it mentions Mary Johanna
Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., then of Acton, Middlesex.
Following Charles Somerset's death in 1712, the manor descended first
to Mary Johanna Somerset's full brother, Henry Somerset, Esq. (died
1730); then to her half-brother, John Somerset, Esq. (died 1731); and
then to her six half-sisters, Anna Caroline, Clare, Jane, Frances,
Anne, and Henrietta Maria. Presumable because he was living in
America, Mary Johanna Somerset's son, Charles Somerset Smith, was not
involved in the inheritance of this property.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +
1. Gloucestershire Archives: Deeds and Family Papers
D332/T51 1670-1752

Contents:
Capital messuage called Over Ross, and lands, 1670-1703, with copy
wills of Jn. Goodere (1696), Chas. Somerset (1705) and Eliz. Somerset
(1740), and case and opinion, 1752.
[These are title-deeds of the house, still existing but divided, in
which John KYRLE, 'The Man of Ross', lived. Two deeds bear his
signature, and one his armorial seal.]
Original bundle order

2. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/039 1712

Contents:
Parties:-
(1) Charles Somerset of Acton, Esquire.
(2) George Sawyer of the Inner Temple, London, Esquire and William
Higford of Ashton under Hill (co. Glouc.) Esq.
Manor of Acton, with all appurtenances in Acton and Willesden; and
capital messuage where John Barnaby Esquire, dwelt, now or late in the
occupation of - Dorry in the parish of Canon Pyon (co. Hereford) and
all other property of (1) in Canon Pyon.
Originally listed as Box 13, parcel B3.

3. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/040

Contents:
Parties:-
(1) Henry Somersett of Acton, Esq.
(2) John Somersett, gentleman only brother of (1)
(3) Caroline Somersett, Clare Somersett, Jane Hooper, widow, Anne
Somersett and Henrietta Maria Somersett, Sisters of (1)
Manor of Acton with all appurts. in Acton and Wilsdon.
(1) Covenants to stand seized to the use of (1) for life, and to the
use that (2) and (3) shall receive annuities and then to the use of
(2) for ever.
(2) Covenants to mortgage lands for £3000 for 500 years from death of
(1) to provide for (3) (1), (2) and (3) covenant to levy a Fine.
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.


4. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/041

Mortgage for £3000 for 500 years from death of (1) by (2) to (4)
(Copy.)
Contents:
Parties:-
(1) Henry Somersett of Acton, Esquire.
(2) John Somersett, gentleman, only brother of (1)
(3) Caroline Somersett, Clare Somersett, Jane Hooper, widow, Anne
Somersett and Henrietta Maria Somersett, sisters of (1) and (2).
(4) George Sawyer of the parish of St. Anns, Esquire and Gabriell
Powell of Swansey (co. Glam.) gentleman.
Manor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.
(In trust to raise £3000-£5000 to said Henry or executors and £2500 to
be divided according to his will)
Originally listed as Box 13 parcel B.3.

5. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/042

Assignment of annuity of £150 and Mortgage for 1000 years: for £600
(Copy).
Contents:
Parties:-
(1) John Somersett of Acton, Esquire.
(2) Margaret Barrow of Twittenham, (Twickenham), spinster
Manor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.
(Recites: (A) ACC/0617/040
(B) that Common Recovery suffered, Michaelmas 1724.)
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

6. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/043

Release (lease missing) (copy)
Contents:
Parties:-
(1) John Somersett of Acton, Esquire.
(2) John Triggs of Newnham (co. Glouc.) gent.
Manor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon (in trust
for (1) for ever and subject to life estate of Henry, brother of (1))
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

7. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/044

Covenant (1) to (2) to take annuity of £300 in lieu of dower (copy)
Contents:
Parties:-
(1) Dorothy Somersett, widow of John Somerset, of Acton, Esquire.
(2) Jane Hooper of St. Andrews, Holborne, widow, Anne Somersett of St.
Andrews Holborn, spinster, and John Frederick of Greys Inn, Esq., and
Henrietta Maria his wife (said Jane, Anne and Henrietta Maria, with
Caroline and Clare Somersett and Frances Scudamore, are sisters and
heirs of said John Somersett).
Property as in ACC/0617/040. (Covenant excludes house in Acton
purchased from Dr. Pearson by John Somerset, estate in Dorset and
Manor of Pauntley (co. Glouc. and Worc.)
(Recites: (A) Will of John Somerset, 21 Dec.1730.
(B) Bill in Chancery - John Trigg of Newnham (co. Glouc.) gent. and
Nathaniel Chambers of Bartletts Buildings, Holborn, gentleman,
trustees of said John etc., etc.
Originally listed as Box 13, Parcel B.3.

8. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/045

Assignment of a Mortgage: (3) to (5) with consent of (1) and (2), in
trust for (4) (copy).
Contents:
Parties:-
(1) John Trigge of Newnham (co. Glouc.) gentleman and Nathaniel
Chambers of St. Andrews Holborn, gent., executors of the will of John
Somerset, late of Acton, gentleman.
(2) Richard Brickendon of St. George the Martyr, Esquire and wife
Caroline; John southcott of Blyborough, (Co. Lincs.) Esquire and wife
Clare; Jane Hooper, widow; Henry Scudamore of Trewergon (co.
Hereford), Esq. and wife Frances, Anne Somerset, Spinster and John
Frederick, Esquire, both of St. George the Martyr, and wife Henrietta
Maria; which said Caroline, Clare, Jane, Frances, Anne and Henrietta
Maria are sisters of Henry Somerset of Acton, Esq., dec'd. and said
John Somerset.
(3) Margaret Barrow of Twittenham (?Twickenham) spinster.
(4) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.,
(5) Benjamin Lethieullier of London, merchant.
Property as in ACC/0617/040.
(Recites: (A) ACC/0617/040.
(B) ACC/0617/042.
(C) that said John Somerset borrowed further £100 from said Margaret
Barrow, 29 Sept. 1729.
(D) Order in Chancery that property be sold subject to said annuities
and interest due to said Margaret, and said Margaret to assign
mortgage to purchaser.
(E) that £740.15.0. due to said Margaret)
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

9. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/046

Release (Lease Missing)
Contents:
(1) & (2) to (3) for £1600 (Subject to annuities, etc.) (copy).
Parties:-
(1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1).
(2) As ACC/0617/045, No. (2): which said Caroline, Clare, Jane,
Frances, Anne and Henrietta Maria are the coheirs and said Jane, Anne
and Henrietta Maria the residuary legatees of John Somerset of Acton,
Esquire, dec'd.
(3) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.
Manor of Acton: messuage with 150 acres, 2 roods, 32 perches, late in
tenure or occupation of Thomas Franklyn; messuage with appurtenances
with 206 acres, 1 rood, 17 perches, late in tenure or occupation of
Henry Stevenson; messuage with appurtenances with 142 acres, 1 rood,
20 perches, late in tenure or occupation of Roger Life; messuage with
appurtenances with 113 ac., 1 rood, 22 perches late in tenure or
occupation of John Franklyn; 72 acres, 3 roods, 36 perches, late in
tenure or occupation of Richard Life; 49 acres, 2 roods, 14 perches,
late in tenure or occupation of ---Pannett; 16 acres, 2 roods, 39
perches, late in tenure or occupation of Tho. Jones; 14 acres, 2
roods, 17 perches, late in tenure or occupation of William Magson; 18
ac., 2 roods, 39 perches, late in tenure or occupation of - Veal; 6
ac., 3 roods, 14 perches of meadow, late in tenure or occupation of
Tho. Finch; 3 acres, 2 roods, late in tenure or occupation of Edward
Briggs; tenement with 2 acres, 1 rood, 17 perches, late in tenure or
occupation of Charles Chapman; all in parishes of Acton and Wilsdon
with all appurtenances to said manor, except late dwelling house with
appurtenances in Acton devised by said John Somerset to wife Dorothy.
(Recites: (A) Will of said John Somerset, 21 Dec.1730.
(B) Bill in Chancery, (1) v. Dorothy Somerset, widow of said John and
other heirs of said John.
(C) ACC/0617/044.
(D) Proceedings in Chancery re. will of said John.
(E) ACC/0617/045 etc.)
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B.3.

10. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/047

Assignment of a term of 500 years.
Contents:
(3) to (5) in trust for (4) (Copy).
Parties:-
(1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1)
(2) As ACC/0617/045, No. (2), which said Caroline, Clare, Jane,
Frances, Anne and Henrietta Maria are sisters and coheirs of John
Somerset of Acton, Esquire dec'd.
(3) Sir Edward Southcote of Witham (Co. Essex), knt., who survived his
co-trustee, Hon. Charles Howard of Surrey, Street, Esquire.
(4) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.
(5) John Jacob of Lothbury, Esq.
Manor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.
(Recites (inter alia), demise for 500 years to (3), in trust of said
property, 10 July 1694)
Originally listed as Box 13, Parcel B3.

11. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/048

Assignment of a term of 500 years
Contents:
(3) to (5) in trust for (4). (Copy).
Parties:-
(1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1).
(2) As ACC/0617/045, No. (2).
(3) George Sawyer of St. Anne, Esquire, who has survived Gabriel Powel
of Swansey (Co. Glam.) gent., dec'd.
(4) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.
(5) Christopher Burrow of Hatton Garden, St. Andrews Holborn, Esquire.
Manor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.
(Recites (inter alia) ACC/0617/041).
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

12. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/049

Quitclaim
Contents:
(1) and (2) to (3) (Copy).
Parties:-
(1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1)
(2) Jane Hooper of Hereford, widow, Anne Somerset of St. George the
Martyr, spinster; John Frederick of St. George the Martyr, Esq., and
wife Henrietta Maria: which said Jane, Anne and Henrietta Maria are 3
of the sisters and residuary legatees of John Somerset of Acton,
Esquire dec'd.
(3) Sarah Lethieullier of Belmont widow, and executor and Benjamin
Lethieullier, of London, Esq., executor of Christopher Lethieullier of
Belmont, Esq., deceased.
Purchase money for the manor of Acton with all legacies, etc.
(Recites: (inter alia) ACC/0617/046.)
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.
Including 6 page schedule of said legacies etc.

[Wjhonson]

Uh... slightly.
John Somerset was not a minor at his death.
There is no reason why his properties should go at all to a half sister when he had full sisters.
Not how it works.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

[Douglas Richardson]

On Mar 25, 8:13 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< Uh... slightly.
< John Somerset was not a minor at his death.
< There is no reason why his properties should go at all to a half
sister when he had full sisters.
< Not how it works.

In this case, I believe the manor of Acton, Middlesex changed hands by
all three methods: general laws of inheritance (without settlement or
will), by settlement, and by family wills.

Since Charles Somerset Smith wasn't included in any settlement or any
of the family wills, he was effectively disinherited. And that's how
it works.

[John]

On Mar 23, 7:28 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~

> 3. Frances Somerset, married Henry Scudamore (died 1737), of Monmouth
> Forge and Treworgan, Herefordshire  [see Miscellanea XI (Catholic Rec.

> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

FWIW there are quite a number of Plantagenet descents behind Henry
Scudamore - over 500, which is nearly as many as his wife has. The
most recent royal descent appears to be from Edward III (same for his
wife). For some of the details, see various volumes of Bradney's
History of Monmouthshire.

[Wjhonson]

No he wasn't disinherited you pompous moron.
Learn the laws.

Half siblings don't get squat if you have full siblings.
That is the Occam's Razor solution to your *highly complex* issue.
Jesus wept.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 9:25 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


On Mar 25, 8:13 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Uh... slightly.
John Somerset was not a minor at his death.
There is no reason why his properties should go at all to a half

ister when he had full sisters.
Not how it works.
In this case, I believe the manor of Acton, Middlesex changed hands by

ll three methods: general laws of inheritance (without settlement or

ill), by settlement, and by family wills.
Since Charles Somerset Smith wasn't included in any settlement or any

f the family wills, he was effectively disinherited. And that's how

t works.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[Douglas Richardson]

On Mar 26, 10:29 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
<No he wasn't disinherited you pompous moron.
< Learn the laws.
<
< Half siblings don't get squat if you have full siblings.
< That is the Occam's Razor solution to your *highly complex* issue.

Please don't call me names, Will. If you're wrong, you're wrong.

In this time period, properties could be inherited by several
methods. As I stated previously, the manor of Acton, Middlesex
changed hands by all three methods: general laws of inheritance
(without settlement or will), by settlement, and by family wills.

The exclusion of Charles Somerset Smith from this inheritance had
nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier laws barring the inheritance
of half-siblings. If it did, then Charles Somerset Smith would have
inherited directly from his full uncle, Henry Somerset, Esq., at the
uncle's death in 1730. Instead the manor of Acton went to Henry
Somerset's half-brother, John Somerset, Esq.

[Wjhonson]

Dear idiot.
There was no earlier law "barring inheritence to half siblings"
God what blathering nonsense.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:25 am
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Mar 26, 10:29 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
No he wasn't disinherited you pompous moron.
Learn the laws.

Half siblings don't get squat if you have full siblings.
That is the Occam's Razor solution to your *highly complex* issue.
Please don't call me names, Will. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
In this time period, properties could be inherited by several

ethods. As I stated previously, the manor of Acton, Middlesex

hanged hands by all three methods: general laws of inheritance

without settlement or will), by settlement, and by family wills.
The exclusion of Charles Somerset Smith from this inheritance had

othing whatsoever to do with the earlier laws barring the inheritance

f half-siblings. If it did, then Charles Somerset Smith would have

nherited directly from his full uncle, Henry Somerset, Esq., at the

ncle's death in 1730. Instead the manor of Acton went to Henry

omerset's half-brother, John Somerset, Esq.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Mar 26, 12:28 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear idiot.
> There was no earlier law "barring inheritence to half siblings"
> God what blathering nonsense.

I just corrected your main point. And it went over your head.

Pay attention, Will.

[Wjhonson]

The point that you don't know what you're talking about ?
That point?

It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in the *past* you blind mole.
Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened before.
Each one, is a brand new creation.
*This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had full siblings. Full Stop.
That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving madmen to explain it.
That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and universal.

That you seem to wander about trying to stab the shark with a fork, is not germane.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:50 am
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

[Leo]

Not knowing anything about the technicalities, just a suggestion. As Maria
Joanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on
the fact that her son was "disinherited"?

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


>

> The point that you don't know what you're talking about ?
> That point?
>
> It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in the
> *past* you blind mole.
> Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened before.
> Each one, is a brand new creation.
> *This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had full
> siblings. Full Stop.
> That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving madmen to
> explain it.
> That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and universal.
>
> That you seem to wander about trying to stab the shark with a fork, is not
> germane.
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:50 am
> Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland
>
>

> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of
> he message
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Wjhonson]

Her sons was not disinherited.
That has a bearing.
There was nothing to disinherit him... from.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: royalancestry <royala...@msn.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Not knowing anything about the technicalities, just a suggestion. As Maria

oanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on

he fact that her son was "disinherited"?
Leo van de Pas

anberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
rom: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
o: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
ent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 AM

ubject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

The point that you don't know what you're talking about ?
That point?

It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in the
*past* you blind mole.
Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened before.
Each one, is a brand new creation.
*This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had full
siblings. Full Stop.
That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving madmen to
explain it.
That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and universal.

That you seem to wander about trying to stab the shark with a fork, is not
germane.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:50 am
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
he message

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Leo]

"Her sons". As far as I know Maria Johanna died in childbirth of her only child.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson

To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; royala...@msn.com ; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Her sons was not disinherited.
That has a bearing.
There was nothing to disinherit him... from.



-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: royalancestry <royala...@msn.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Not knowing anything about the technicalities, just a suggestion. As Maria

Joanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on
the fact that her son was "disinherited"?

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


>

> The point that you don't know what you're talking about ?
> That point?
>
> It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in the
> *past* you blind mole.
> Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened before.
> Each one, is a brand new creation.
> *This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had full
> siblings. Full Stop.
> That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving madmen to
> explain it.
> That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and universal.
>
> That you seem to wander about trying to stab the shark with a fork, is not
> germane.
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:50 am
> Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland
>
>

> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of
> he message
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Wjhonson]

"Her sons was"
I'm sure you can work out, that one of those words is a typo.

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: royalancestry <royala...@msn.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

"Her sons". As far as I know Maria Johanna died in childbirth of her only child.


----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; royala...@msn.com ; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:45 AM

Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Her sons was not disinherited.
That has a bearing.
There was nothing to disinherit him... from.



-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: royalancestry <royala...@msn.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Not knowing anything about the technicalities, just a suggestion. As Maria

oanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on

he fact that her son was "disinherited"?
Leo van de Pas

anberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----

rom: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
o: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

ent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 AM

ubject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

The point that you don't know what you're talking about ?
That point?

It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in the
*past* you blind mole.
Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened before.
Each one, is a brand new creation.
*This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had full
siblings. Full Stop.
That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving madmen to
explain it.
That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and universal.

That you seem to wander about trying to stab the shark with a fork, is not
germane.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:50 am
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
he message

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Douglas Richardson]

On Mar 26, 12:55 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in
the *past* you blind mole.
< Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened
before.
< Each one, is a brand new creation.
< *This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had
full siblings.  Full Stop.
< That's it.  There is no need for any other nonsense from raving
madmen to explain it.
< That was my point.  You cannot refute it.  It is ironclad and
universal.

Actually Charles Somerset Smith was excluded from the inheritance of
Acton, Middlesex at the death of his full uncle, Henry Somerset, Esq.,
in 1730. If you were correct (and you are not), the manor should have
descended to Henry Somerset's nephew, Charles Somerset Smith, in
1730. Instead the manor of Acton passed instead to Henry Somerset's
half-brother, John Somerset, Esq. The reasons for Charles Somerset
Smith's exclusion in 1730 are clear if you study the will of Henry
Somerset, Esq., and the documents I posted from the A2A Catalogue.
Obviously you haven't seen the will of Henry Somerset, Esq. Have you?

In a previous post in this thread, I spoke of the law that prohibited
a half-sibling from inheriting from a full-sibling. As best I
understand it, this "policy" was started by the English kings about
A.D. 1200 (certainly before A.D. 1213). I believe at some point it
was codified into law. It was in force for many generations. I
believe this law was eventually revoked, but I don't know the exact
date. Perhaps Matt Tompkins knows better particulars. This law
could be and was often circumvented by property settlements (as was
the law governing the inheritance of illegitimate children). A
property settlement could be used to divert property in any direction
the owner wished.

My good friend and colleague, Andrew B.W. MacEwen, the resident expert
on all things Scottish, tells me that, unlike England, half-siblings
were never barred from succession in Scotland. If a man had sons by
multiple wives in Scotland, they inherited in succession of birth,
and, if the sons' issue then failed, the family's possessions were
then split among all surviving sisters regardless of which of their
father's wives was their mother.

[Wjhonson]

Utter nonsense. When you can't win, you just start making stuff up.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Mar 26, 12:55 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in

he *past* you blind mole.
Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened

efore.
Each one, is a brand new creation.
*This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had

ull siblings. Full Stop.
That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving

admen to explain it.
That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and

niversal.
Actually Charles Somerset Smith was excluded from the inheritance of

cton, Middlesex at the death of his full uncle, Henry Somerset, Esq.,

n 1730. If you were correct (and you are not), the manor should have

escended to Henry Somerset's nephew, Charles Somerset Smith, in

730. Instead the manor of Acton passed instead to Henry Somerset's

alf-brother, John Somerset, Esq. The reasons for Charles Somerset

mith's exclusion in 1730 are clear if you study the will of Henry

omerset, Esq., and the documents I posted from the A2A Catalogue.

bviously you haven't seen the will of Henry Somerset, Esq. Have you?
In a previous post in this thread, I spoke of the law that prohibited

half-sibling from inheriting from a full-sibling. As best I

nderstand it, this "policy" was started by the English kings about

.D. 1200 (certainly before A.D. 1213). I believe at some point it

as codified into law. It was in force for many generations. I

elieve this law was eventually revoked, but I don't know the exact

ate. Perhaps Matt Tompkins knows better particulars. This law

ould be and was often circumvented by property settlements (as was

he law governing the inheritance of illegitimate children). A

roperty settlement could be used to divert property in any direction

he owner wished.
My good friend and colleague, Andrew B.W. MacEwen, the resident expert

n all things Scottish, tells me that, unlike England, half-siblings

ere never barred from succession in Scotland. If a man had sons by

ultiple wives in Scotland, they inherited in succession of birth,

nd, if the sons' issue then failed, the family's possessions were

hen split among all surviving sisters regardless of which of their

ather's wives was their mother.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Leo]

Really? I didn't think you made typos.

I find hereditary rules very confusing, and not only in England.

When Carlos II of Spain died without an obvious heir, Louis XIV decided, based on a hereditary law from _Brabant_ that the children from Carlos's father by the first marriage completely "disinherited" the children by the second marriage, which made the descendants of his wife the only acceptable heir. Start of the Spanish War of Succession. By that time there were no descendants of the second marriage. Even though, Carlos had a full sister whose grandson was heir to Spain, but this child died before Carlos II.

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; royala...@msn.com ; gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

"Her sons was"
I'm sure you can work out, that one of those words is a typo.




-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: royalancestry <royala...@msn.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

"Her sons". As far as I know Maria Johanna died in childbirth of her only child.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; royala...@msn.com ; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:45 AM

Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Her sons was not disinherited.
That has a bearing.
There was nothing to disinherit him... from.



-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: royalancestry <royala...@msn.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Not knowing anything about the technicalities, just a suggestion. As Maria

Joanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on
the fact that her son was "disinherited"?

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


>

> The point that you don't know what you're talking about ?
> That point?
>

> It's not relevant to *this* inheritence, how the manor descended in the
> *past* you blind mole.
> Each inheritence follows the rules of *itself*, not what happened before.

> Each one, is a brand new creation.

> *This* one can be completely explained by the fact that the man had full
> siblings. Full Stop.
> That's it. There is no need for any other nonsense from raving madmen to
> explain it.

> That was my point. You cannot refute it. It is ironclad and universal.
>
> That you seem to wander about trying to stab the shark with a fork, is not
> germane.
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 11:50 am
> Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland
>
>

> On Mar 26, 12:28 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear idiot.
> There was no earlier law "barring inheritence to half siblings"
> God what blathering nonsense.
> I just corrected your main point. And it went over your head.
> Pay attention, Will.

> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
> ------------------------------
> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> of
> he message
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Wjhonson]

When a person dies with or without an obvious heir, the king can do what he does.
However that's not the case when a person dies with full siblings, as in this particular case we are debating.
When a person dies with full siblings, no spouse, no children, parents dead, not entailed... the estate goes to the full siblings. Full Stop.
And whether or not there are half siblings is not germane.

oanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on

he fact that her son was "disinherited"?
Leo van de Pas

anberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----

rom: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
o: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

[Leo]

Not knowing the rules. You can only ask why bother making a will if all is spelled out? But rough on spouses, what about dowers?

Joanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on
the fact that her son was "disinherited"?

Leo van de Pas

Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


>

[Wjhonson]

A "Will" is for that which you may give away.
You are not allowed to give some things away.
For example things you do not own entire.
You may give away your portion, but you cannot make requirements on that which intrude on the rights of others.

The vast majority of persons, die intestate, without a will. What would you have then, higgley piggley ?
Surviving female spouses were entitled to their dower portion well into the 19th century.
Not however the case here.

oanna Somerset eloped to North America, could that have had a bearing on

he fact that her son was "disinherited"?
Leo van de Pas

anberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----

rom: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
o: <royala...@msn.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

[Matt Tompkins]

Will, Douglas' point is that the rule excluding half-siblings from
inheritance only applied to inheritance by operation of the general
law of succession, ie only to land which was not left by will or which
was subject to an entail or settlement. By the 18th century
inheritance by operation of law was pretty rare, however, because by
this period (1) English law allowed landowners to leave all their
land, whatever the tenure they held it by, to anyone they pleased
(providing it was not entailed or settled) - so they could certainly
leave it to a half-sibling if they wished - and (2) almost all the
land owned by the peerage and gentry was subject to a settlement, so
that even devising land by will was much more rare than it is today.
Many noble and gentry testators were hamstrung by a settlement created
by their predecessors.

The manor of Acton in Middlesex does seem to have passed from a Henry
Somerset to his brother John in 1727 under a settlement - see the
relevant chapter of the VCH Middlesex, vii, here (the passage to which
footnote 77 applies):

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22548

Matt Tompkins

[Wjhonson]

That was never under dispute however.
The sole issue under dispute is why the half-sibling was excluded and the full siblings inherited.
You don't need any fancy settlements to explain such a normal situation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Will, Douglas' point is that the rule excluding half-siblings from

nheritance only applied to inheritance by operation of the general

aw of succession, ie only to land which was not left by will or which

as subject to an entail or settlement. By the 18th century

nheritance by operation of law was pretty rare, however, because by

his period (1) English law allowed landowners to leave all their

and, whatever the tenure they held it by, to anyone they pleased

providing it was not entailed or settled) - so they could certainly

eave it to a half-sibling if they wished - and (2) almost all the

and owned by the peerage and gentry was subject to a settlement, so

hat even devising land by will was much more rare than it is today.

any noble and gentry testators were hamstrung by a settlement created

y their predecessors.
The manor of Acton in Middlesex does seem to have passed from a Henry

omerset to his brother John in 1727 under a settlement - see the

elevant chapter of the VCH Middlesex, vii, here (the passage to which

ootnote 77 applies):
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22548
Matt Tompkins

[Douglas Richardson]

Thank you, Matt. You made the matter very clear.

[Wjhonson]

Matt addressed a point that was never in dispute.
So perhaps you'd like to refactor your comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Thank you, Matt. You made the matter very clear.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Will Johnson is apparently assuming that the king was the person who
decided who inherited Acton, Middlesex on the death of Henry Somerset,
Esq. in 1730. In this case, the inheritance of this manor was
governed by the laws then in place that concern family estates,
specifically those that concern wills and settlements. It had nothing
to do whether or not Henry Somerset was survived by a full or half-
sibling, or their issue.

When Henry Somerset, Esq. died, he was survived by his full sister's
son, Charles Somerset Smith, and his one half-brother, John Somerset,
Esq., and six half-sisters, Anna Caroline (wife of Richard Brickenden,

Esq.), Clare (wife of John Southcote, Esq.), Jane (wife of _____
Hooper), Frances (wife
of Henry Scudamore, Esq.), Anne (unmarried), and Henrietta Maria (wife
of John Frederick, Esq.).

On Henry Somerset's death in 1730, the inheritance of Acton, Middlesex
passed to Henry Somerset's half-brother, John Somerset, by settlement
dated 1724. The document that made that transfer is copied below.
This settlement dated 1724 is specifically mentioned in Henry
Somerset's will dated 23 Nov. 1725, proved 8 May 1730 (P.C.C. 139
Auber). I'm looking at a copy of the will right now.

London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/040

Covenants to stand seized and to levy a Fine, etc. (copy). Date:
1724.

Contents:
Parties:-
(1) Henry Somersett of Acton, Esq.
(2) John Somersett, gentleman only brother of (1)
(3) Caroline Somersett, Clare Somersett, Jane Hooper, widow, Anne
Somersett and Henrietta Maria Somersett, Sisters of (1)
Manor of Acton with all appurts. in Acton and Wilsdon.
(1) Covenants to stand seized to the use of (1) for life, and to the
use that (2) and (3) shall receive annuities and then to the use of
(2) for ever.
(2) Covenants to mortgage lands for £3000 for 500 years from death of
(1) to provide for (3) (1), (2) and (3) covenant to levy a Fine.
Originally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

Charles Somerset Smith was effectively disinherited by his uncle,
Henry Somerset, Esq. Another family member left out of the 1724
settlement was Henry Somerset's half-sister, Frances Scudamore.

[Wjhonson]

Irrelevant. Red Herring Alert.
Moving the goal posts alert.
Who is the hell is talking about what Henry did, when and to whom.
Not I said the duck.

The point is not about Henry, at all.
It's about ... drum roll please.... John.
What occurred when JOHN did.

You are the only person bringing up Charles Somerset Smith, which is irrelevant.
Henry, by will or settlement, can do what he wants.

Someone... let me think who... oh yes YOU, stated that Mary was not included because she was in America or some ridiculous twaddle of that sort. This settlement is providing annuities, not inheritence, to these half-sisters of Henry's. It bears no weight on what, if anything, Henry did for his Full sister and her son.

The only point of relevance, is what occurred after John died, when his sisters took possession of the entire inheritence.

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

Dear Newsgroup ~
Will Johnson is apparently assuming that the king was the person who

ecided who inherited Acton, Middlesex on the death of Henry Somerset,

sq. in 1730. In this case, the inheritance of this manor was

overned by the laws then in place that concern family estates,

pecifically those that concern wills and settlements. It had nothing

o do whether or not Henry Somerset was survived by a full or half-

ibling, or their issue.
When Henry Somerset, Esq. died, he was survived by his full sister's

on, Charles Somerset Smith, and his one half-brother, John Somerset,

sq., and six half-sisters, Anna Caroline (wife of Richard Brickenden,

sq.), Clare (wife of John Southcote, Esq.), Jane (wife of _____

ooper), Frances (wife

f Henry Scudamore, Esq.), Anne (unmarried), and Henrietta Maria (wife

f John Frederick, Esq.).
On Henry Somerset's death in 1730, the inheritance of Acton, Middlesex

assed to Henry Somerset's half-brother, John Somerset, by settlement

ated 1724. The document that made that transfer is copied below.

his settlement dated 1724 is specifically mentioned in Henry

omerset's will dated 23 Nov. 1725, proved 8 May 1730 (P.C.C. 139

uber). I'm looking at a copy of the will right now.
London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/040
Covenants to stand seized and to levy a Fine, etc. (copy). Date:

724.
Contents:
arties:-

1) Henry Somersett of Acton, Esq.

2) John Somersett, gentleman only brother of (1)

3) Caroline Somersett, Clare Somersett, Jane Hooper, widow, Anne

omersett and Henrietta Maria Somersett, Sisters of (1)

anor of Acton with all appurts. in Acton and Wilsdon.

1) Covenants to stand seized to the use of (1) for life, and to the

se that (2) and (3) shall receive annuities and then to the use of

2) for ever.

2) Covenants to mortgage lands for £3000 for 500 years from death of

1) to provide for (3) (1), (2) and (3) covenant to levy a Fine.

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.
Charles Somerset Smith was effectively disinherited by his uncle,

enry Somerset, Esq. Another family member left out of the 1724

ettlement was Henry Somerset's half-sister, Frances Scudamore.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

To summarize the chain of title, the manor of Acton, Somerset passed
from person to person as follows:

1. On the death of Edward Maria Somerset in 1709 without a will, I
believe the manor of Acton, Middlesex passed by general laws of
inheritance to his nearest male heir, it being his uncle, Charles
Somerset, Esq., of Over Ross (in Ross), Herefordshire.

2. On the death of Charles Somerset, Esq. in 1712, it apparently
passed by a settlement dated 1712 to various trustees. The trustees
apparently in turn released the manor to his elder son and heir, Henry
Somerset, Esq. The property is not mentioned in his will.

2. Henry Somerset, Esq., in turn settled the property in 1724 on
himself for life, with remainder to his half-brother, John Somerset,
Esq. The settlement dated 1724 is mentioned in his will.

4. John Somerset, Esq. left a will dated 1730, in which he conveyed
the manor of Acton to his executors as trustees and they were
instructed to sell the property subject to the payment of certain
annuities which are specified in his will.

Thus, the manor of Acton passed by all three methods of inheritance as
I stated in my earlier post; general law of inheritance; by settlement
and will; and by will. Complicated yes, but it explains how and why
Charles Somerset Smith, of Maryland, was precluded from the
inheritance of the manor of Acton, Somerset.

[Wjhonson]

Just to remind our readers of what you had said initially, which you've now revised substantially, I copy your below.






<<The first in this

eries of documents is dated 1712 and it mentions Mary Johanna

omerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., then of Acton, Middlesex.

ollowing Charles Somerset's death in 1712, the manor descended first

o Mary Johanna Somerset's full brother, Henry Somerset, Esq. (died

730); then to her half-brother, John Somerset, Esq. (died 1731); and

hen to her six half-sisters, Anna Caroline, Clare, Jane, Frances,

nne, and Henrietta Maria. Presumable because he was living in

merica, Mary Johanna Somerset's son, Charles Somerset Smith, was not
nvolved in the inheritance of this property.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 5:05 pm

Subject: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


Dear Newsgroup ~

This week I had the opportunity to examine the will of the immigrant,

ary Johanna Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., proved 1712
(P.C.C. 102 Barnes), and that of her step-mother, Elizabeth (Goodere)

omerset, proved 1748 (P.C.C. 227 Strahan). These two wills taken

ogether with the various records below drawn from the the online A2A

atalogue, conclusively establish that the immigrant, Mary Johanna

omerset, had one-half-brother, John Somerset, Esq., and six half-
isters, Anna Caroline (wife of Richard Brickenden, Esq.), Clare (wife
f John Southcote, Esq.), Jane (wife of _____ Hooper), Frances (wife

f Henry Scudamore, Esq.), Anne (unmarried), and Henrietta Maria (wife
f John Frederick, Esq.).

The A2A Catalogue has several records which pertain to the immediate

amily of Mary Johanna Somerset. The first document below concerns

he capital messuage called Over Ross, Herefordshire, which property

as owned by Mary Johanna Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq.

died 1712). Reference is made in that record to the wills of Charles

omerset, Esq., his widow, Elizabeth (Goodere) Somerset, and Elizabeth

Goodere) Somerset's father, John Goodere.
The next set of documents below (Items #2-12) concern the descent of

he manor of Acton, Middlesex, which property was evidently inherited

n 1709 by Mary Johanna Somerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., on

he death of his nephew, Edward Maria Somerset. The first in this

eries of documents is dated 1712 and it mentions Mary Johanna

omerset's father, Charles Somerset, Esq., then of Acton, Middlesex.

ollowing Charles Somerset's death in 1712, the manor descended first

o Mary Johanna Somerset's full brother, Henry Somerset, Esq. (died

730); then to her half-brother, John Somerset, Esq. (died 1731); and

hen to her six half-sisters, Anna Caroline, Clare, Jane, Frances,

nne, and Henrietta Maria. Presumable because he was living in

merica, Mary Johanna Somerset's son, Charles Somerset Smith, was not
nvolved in the inheritance of this property.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

. Gloucestershire Archives: Deeds and Family Papers

332/T51 1670-1752
Contents:

apital messuage called Over Ross, and lands, 1670-1703, with copy

ills of Jn. Goodere (1696), Chas. Somerset (1705) and Eliz. Somerset

1740), and case and opinion, 1752.
These are title-deeds of the house, still existing but divided, in

hich John KYRLE, 'The Man of Ross', lived. Two deeds bear his

ignature, and one his armorial seal.]

riginal bundle order
2. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/039 1712
Contents:
arties:-

1) Charles Somerset of Acton, Esquire.

2) George Sawyer of the Inner Temple, London, Esquire and William

igford of Ashton under Hill (co. Glouc.) Esq.

anor of Acton, with all appurtenances in Acton and Willesden; and

apital messuage where John Barnaby Esquire, dwelt, now or late in the

ccupation of - Dorry in the parish of Canon Pyon (co. Hereford) and

ll other property of (1) in Canon Pyon.

riginally listed as Box 13, parcel B3.

3. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/040

Contents:
arties:-
1) Henry Somersett of Acton, Esq.
2) John Somersett, gentleman only brother of (1)
3) Caroline Somersett, Clare Somersett, Jane Hooper, widow, Anne
omersett and Henrietta Maria Somersett, Sisters of (1)
anor of Acton with all appurts. in Acton and Wilsdon.
1) Covenants to stand seized to the use of (1) for life, and to the
se that (2) and (3) shall receive annuities and then to the use of
2) for ever.
2) Covenants to mortgage lands for £3000 for 500 years from death of
1) to provide for (3) (1), (2) and (3) covenant to levy a Fine.
riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/041
Mortgage for £3000 for 500 years from death of (1) by (2) to (4)

Copy.)
ontents:
arties:-
1) Henry Somersett of Acton, Esquire.
2) John Somersett, gentleman, only brother of (1)

3) Caroline Somersett, Clare Somersett, Jane Hooper, widow, Anne

omersett and Henrietta Maria Somersett, sisters of (1) and (2).

4) George Sawyer of the parish of St. Anns, Esquire and Gabriell

owell of Swansey (co. Glam.) gentleman.

anor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.

In trust to raise £3000-£5000 to said Henry or executors and £2500 to

e divided according to his will)

riginally listed as Box 13 parcel B.3.
5. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/042
Assignment of annuity of £150 and Mortgage for 1000 years: for £600

Copy).
ontents:
arties:-

1) John Somersett of Acton, Esquire.

2) Margaret Barrow of Twittenham, (Twickenham), spinster

anor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.

Recites: (A) ACC/0617/040

B) that Common Recovery suffered, Michaelmas 1724.)

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

6. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/043
Release (lease missing) (copy)

ontents:
arties:-

1) John Somersett of Acton, Esquire.

2) John Triggs of Newnham (co. Glouc.) gent.

anor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon (in trust

or (1) for ever and subject to life estate of Henry, brother of (1))

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

7. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/044
Covenant (1) to (2) to take annuity of £300 in lieu of dower (copy)

ontents:
arties:-

1) Dorothy Somersett, widow of John Somerset, of Acton, Esquire.

2) Jane Hooper of St. Andrews, Holborne, widow, Anne Somersett of St.

ndrews Holborn, spinster, and John Frederick of Greys Inn, Esq., and

enrietta Maria his wife (said Jane, Anne and Henrietta Maria, with

aroline and Clare Somersett and Frances Scudamore, are sisters and

eirs of said John Somersett).

roperty as in ACC/0617/040. (Covenant excludes house in Acton

urchased from Dr. Pearson by John Somerset, estate in Dorset and

anor of Pauntley (co. Glouc. and Worc.)

Recites: (A) Will of John Somerset, 21 Dec.1730.

B) Bill in Chancery - John Trigg of Newnham (co. Glouc.) gent. and

athaniel Chambers of Bartletts Buildings, Holborn, gentleman,

rustees of said John etc., etc.

riginally listed as Box 13, Parcel B.3.
8. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/045
Assignment of a Mortgage: (3) to (5) with consent of (1) and (2), in

rust for (4) (copy).
ontents:
arties:-

1) John Trigge of Newnham (co. Glouc.) gentleman and Nathaniel

hambers of St. Andrews Holborn, gent., executors of the will of John

omerset, late of Acton, gentleman.

2) Richard Brickendon of St. George the Martyr, Esquire and wife

aroline; John southcott of Blyborough, (Co. Lincs.) Esquire and wife

lare; Jane Hooper, widow; Henry Scudamore of Trewergon (co.

ereford), Esq. and wife Frances, Anne Somerset, Spinster and John

rederick, Esquire, both of St. George the Martyr, and wife Henrietta

aria; which said Caroline, Clare, Jane, Frances, Anne and Henrietta

aria are sisters of Henry Somerset of Acton, Esq., dec'd. and said

ohn Somerset.

3) Margaret Barrow of Twittenham (?Twickenham) spinster.

4) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.,

5) Benjamin Lethieullier of London, merchant.

roperty as in ACC/0617/040.
Recites: (A) ACC/0617/040.
B) ACC/0617/042.

C) that said John Somerset borrowed further £100 from said Margaret

arrow, 29 Sept. 1729.

D) Order in Chancery that property be sold subject to said annuities

nd interest due to said Margaret, and said Margaret to assign

ortgage to purchaser.

E) that £740.15.0. due to said Margaret)

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

9. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/046
Release (Lease Missing)
ontents:

1) & (2) to (3) for £1600 (Subject to annuities, etc.) (copy).

arties:-
1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1).

2) As ACC/0617/045, No. (2): which said Caroline, Clare, Jane,

rances, Anne and Henrietta Maria are the coheirs and said Jane, Anne

nd Henrietta Maria the residuary legatees of John Somerset of Acton,

squire, dec'd.

3) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.

anor of Acton: messuage with 150 acres, 2 roods, 32 perches, late in

enure or occupation of Thomas Franklyn; messuage with appurtenances

ith 206 acres, 1 rood, 17 perches, late in tenure or occupation of

enry Stevenson; messuage with appurtenances with 142 acres, 1 rood,

0 perches, late in tenure or occupation of Roger Life; messuage with

ppurtenances with 113 ac., 1 rood, 22 perches late in tenure or

ccupation of John Franklyn; 72 acres, 3 roods, 36 perches, late in

enure or occupation of Richard Life; 49 acres, 2 roods, 14 perches,

ate in tenure or occupation of ---Pannett; 16 acres, 2 roods, 39

erches, late in tenure or occupation of Tho. Jones; 14 acres, 2

oods, 17 perches, late in tenure or occupation of William Magson; 18

c., 2 roods, 39 perches, late in tenure or occupation of - Veal; 6

c., 3 roods, 14 perches of meadow, late in tenure or occupation of

ho. Finch; 3 acres, 2 roods, late in tenure or occupation of Edward

riggs; tenement with 2 acres, 1 rood, 17 perches, late in tenure or

ccupation of Charles Chapman; all in parishes of Acton and Wilsdon

ith all appurtenances to said manor, except late dwelling house with

ppurtenances in Acton devised by said John Somerset to wife Dorothy.

Recites: (A) Will of said John Somerset, 21 Dec.1730.

B) Bill in Chancery, (1) v. Dorothy Somerset, widow of said John and

ther heirs of said John.
C) ACC/0617/044.

D) Proceedings in Chancery re. will of said John.

E) ACC/0617/045 etc.)

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B.3.
10. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/047
Assignment of a term of 500 years.

ontents:

3) to (5) in trust for (4) (Copy).

arties:-
1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1)

2) As ACC/0617/045, No. (2), which said Caroline, Clare, Jane,

rances, Anne and Henrietta Maria are sisters and coheirs of John

omerset of Acton, Esquire dec'd.

3) Sir Edward Southcote of Witham (Co. Essex), knt., who survived his

o-trustee, Hon. Charles Howard of Surrey, Street, Esquire.

4) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.

5) John Jacob of Lothbury, Esq.

anor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.

Recites (inter alia), demise for 500 years to (3), in trust of said

roperty, 10 July 1694)

riginally listed as Box 13, Parcel B3.
11. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/048
Assignment of a term of 500 years

ontents:

3) to (5) in trust for (4). (Copy).

arties:-
1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1).
2) As ACC/0617/045, No. (2).

3) George Sawyer of St. Anne, Esquire, who has survived Gabriel Powel

f Swansey (Co. Glam.) gent., dec'd.

4) Christopher Lethieullier of Belmont, Esq.

5) Christopher Burrow of Hatton Garden, St. Andrews Holborn, Esquire.

anor of Acton with all appurtenances in Acton and Wilsdon.

Recites (inter alia) ACC/0617/041).

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

12. London Metropolitan Archives:Wegg Family, ACC/0617/049
Quitclaim
ontents:

1) and (2) to (3) (Copy).

arties:-
1) As ACC/0617/045, No. (1)

2) Jane Hooper of Hereford, widow, Anne Somerset of St. George the

artyr, spinster; John Frederick of St. George the Martyr, Esq., and

ife Henrietta Maria: which said Jane, Anne and Henrietta Maria are 3

f the sisters and residuary legatees of John Somerset of Acton,

squire dec'd.

3) Sarah Lethieullier of Belmont widow, and executor and Benjamin

ethieullier, of London, Esq., executor of Christopher Lethieullier of

elmont, Esq., deceased.

urchase money for the manor of Acton with all legacies, etc.

Recites: (inter alia) ACC/0617/046.)

riginally listed as Box 13 Parcel B3.

ncluding 6 page schedule of said legacies etc.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I might add that before the manor of Acton, Somerset could be sold,
the interests of John Somerset's widow and his six sisters had to be
released in order for there to be a clear title Some of the
documents I've posted clearly indicate that the sisters were acting as
heirs of John Somerset. So the directive that the manor be sold by
John Somerset obscures the fact that the property had been encumbered
by earlier arrangements and, as indicated below, by his own will.

Besides the widow, sisters, and executors, a certain Margaret Barrow
also held a mortgage on the property and she was involved in the sale
of the property.

In addition to these various parties, John Somerset's will dated 21
Dec. 1730 indicates that his half-sister, Elizabeth Somerset, was then
living. He bequeathed her an annuity of five pounds per year payable
out of the manor of Acton, Middlesex, and an annuity of 50 pounds to
his full sister, Frances Scudamore, payable out of the same property.
Neither Elizabeth Somerset or Frances Scudamore had been included in
the family settlement made back in 1724 by John Somerset's half-
brother, Henry Somerset, Esq. John Somerset also bequeathed his wife
Dorothy Somerset an annuity of 200 pounds, which annuity was also
payable out of the manor of Acton, Middlesex.

As best I can determine, the sister Elizabeth Somerset didn't release
her interest in the manor of Acton at the time the property was sold.
Since she was mentioned by her maiden name in her brother's will, I
assume she was unmarried in 1730. Why she was excluded in the 1724
settlement by her full brother, Henry Somerset, is not explained.

Regardless, none of these arrangements had anything to do with the
king, or whether or not any of these people were full or half-
siblings. As can be seen, Charles Somerset Smith, of Maryland was
completely excluded from the settlement, wills, and releases, he
having no interest whatsoever in the manor of Acton, Somerset.

[Matt Tompkins]

On Mar 26, 10:43 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> That was never under dispute however.
> The sole issue under dispute is why the half-sibling was excluded and the full siblings inherited.
> You don't need any fancy settlements to explain such a normal situation.
>
>

But you have it back to front, Will. If there was a settlement - and
there was in this case - then the law against inheritance by half-
siblings was irrelevant. The creator of a settlement had complete
freedom to dictate the line of succession, he could include or exclude
anyone he liked. There was not even a social convention pressuring
him to exclude half-siblings - their exclusion by the law of intestate
inheritance was not mirrored by an equivalent social expectation, and
they were commonly included in family settlements.

Matt

[Colin B. Withers]

"I find hereditary rules very confusing, and not only in England."

Leo,

Hereditary laws and rules varied from place to place even within England, and where local custom clashed with common law, local custom prevailed.

However, there was an immense amount of corruption going on when it came to testaments and the property of intestates, with officials up and down the country selling administration to the highest bidder, notwithstanding who had the better claim, and refusing to prove valid wills unless a bribe was paid, etc. It was a complete mess, and although there were 'rules' they were more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

For larger estates, testamentary laws were often bypassed completely by a private Act of Parliament.

If you would like the Chapter from my book on The Development of Probate Law, I would be glad to send you a copy.

Wibs

[WJho...@aol.com]

There was no law against inheritance by half-siblings.
They were not excluded by the law of intestate inheritance
There was no settlement at *this* point and that is the point.
Whether there was a settlement earlier, for an earlier group is not
relevant to THIS point.
It's relevant to THAT point.

If you re read once again what Douglas *initially* said, not what he later
said, and read it carefully with an eye toward the error you will see what
he said, and why it's ridiculous.

Are you claiming that because a person had moved to America they would be
excluded?
Or are you ignoring what Douglas said


In a message dated 3/26/2012 11:30:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

[WJho...@aol.com]

Hilarious. You can't even comprehend the documents you post.
Why he was "excluded" at this point is patently obvious.
*Rolls eyes*



In a message dated 3/26/2012 6:30:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is no explanation as to why three family members were excluded
from the 1724 settlement of Somerset family property at Acton,
Middlesex. The three family members so excluded were Henry
Siomerset's full sister, Elizabeth Somerset; his full nephew, Charles
Somerset Smith; and his half-sister, Frances (Somerset) Scudamore.

There is a hint, however, as why one of them may have been excluded.
In the later 1730 will of John Somerset (Henry Somerset's half-
brother), he bequeaths 50 pounds a year payable out of the same
property to his full sister, Frances Scudamore, and orders that "her
husband have nothing to do or intermeddle therewith." It would seem
that Frances (Somerset) Scudamore had an abusive husband.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Mar 27, 11:20 am, Johnny Brananas <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
< Since Charles Somerset's will mentions "Charles Smith ye sonn of
Mary
< Smith my unfortunate daughter," is it possible that Mary [Johanna]
< herself was not legitimate?

Mary Johanna Somerset was definitely the legitimate issue of her
father. She is thought to have died in childbirth. As such, I assume
that is why her father refers to her as "unfortunate."

[Matt Tompkins]

On Mar 27, 11:38 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> There was no law against inheritance by half-siblings.
> They were not excluded by the law of intestate inheritance
> There was no settlement at *this* point and that is the point.
> Whether there was a settlement earlier, for an earlier group is not
> relevant to THIS point.
> It's relevant to THAT point.
>
> If you re read once again what Douglas *initially* said, not what he later
> said, and read it carefully with an eye toward the error you will see what
> he  said, and why it's ridiculous.
>
> Are you claiming that because a person had moved to America they would be
> excluded?
> Or are you ignoring what Douglas said

Will, I'm afraid your tendency to ellipsis has developed to the point
where I'm now just not sure what you're trying to say.

You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring
half-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred
to it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the
Inheritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in
America).

As I understand it, the facts are these: when Henry Somerset died in
1731 he left no issue and had no surviving full siblings, but he did
have a nephew of the full blood (Charles Somerset Smith, son of his
full sister Mary Joanna), and also a brother (John Somerset) and
several sisters of the half-blood. If his landed property were not
entailed, and if he did not leave it by his will, then by the
operation of the general law of inheritance it would have gone to his
nephew - his half-brother would have been excluded from the succession
by the rule against inheritance by siblings of the half-blood.

However the manor of Acton in fact passed to his half-brother. Why?
Because in 1724 Henry Somerset had created a settlement by which he
excluded his nephew and instead arranged for the manor to descend to
his half-brother.

We don't know why he excluded his nephew from the inheritance in this
way, but one might speculate that it was somehow connected to the fact
of the nephew being out of sight, out of mind in America.

Matt Tompkins

[Derek Howard]

On Mar 28, 1:52 pm, Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring
> half-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred
> to it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the

> Inheritance Act 1833 <snip>.

True. See A W B Simpson: "An Introduction to the History of the Land
Law", 1961, 57-8, where it is explained, though its origins seem
subject to controversy.

Derek Howard

[Wjhonson]

I don't know to what you could possibly be referring.
There was no law barring half-siblings from inheriting land. Full stop.
I never stated there was such a law, and there was in fact, no such law.

What there is, is a precendence for who inherits lands when a testator dies.
IF there are full siblings, they would inherit in *preference* to half siblings.
This is not, and was not, any "law barring inheritence to half siblings". Quite the contrary.

If you die with a spouse no children, the spouse get it.
If you die with no spouse but children, they get it.
If you die with no spouse, no children, but parents, they get it.
If you die with no spouse, no children, and no parents, your FULL siblings get it.
If you die with no spouse, no children, no parents, and no full siblings, your HALF siblings get it.

That's the way it's been always. For all time. Since day one of year one :)

Now, show the evidence that there was ever any law barriing half siblings.

<<<You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring

alf-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred

o it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the

nheritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in

merica).>>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


On Mar 27, 11:38 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
There was no law against inheritance by half-siblings.
They were not excluded by the law of intestate inheritance
There was no settlement at *this* point and that is the point.
Whether there was a settlement earlier, for an earlier group is not
relevant to THIS point.
It's relevant to THAT point.

If you re read once again what Douglas *initially* said, not what he later
said, and read it carefully with an eye toward the error you will see what
he said, and why it's ridiculous.

Are you claiming that because a person had moved to America they would be
excluded?
Or are you ignoring what Douglas said

ill, I'm afraid your tendency to ellipsis has developed to the point

here I'm now just not sure what you're trying to say.
You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring

alf-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred

o it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the

nheritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in

merica).
As I understand it, the facts are these: when Henry Somerset died in

731 he left no issue and had no surviving full siblings, but he did

ave a nephew of the full blood (Charles Somerset Smith, son of his

ull sister Mary Joanna), and also a brother (John Somerset) and

everal sisters of the half-blood. If his landed property were not

ntailed, and if he did not leave it by his will, then by the

peration of the general law of inheritance it would have gone to his

ephew - his half-brother would have been excluded from the succession

y the rule against inheritance by siblings of the half-blood.
However the manor of Acton in fact passed to his half-brother. Why?

ecause in 1724 Henry Somerset had created a settlement by which he

xcluded his nephew and instead arranged for the manor to descend to

is half-brother.
We don't know why he excluded his nephew from the inheritance in this

ay, but one might speculate that it was somehow connected to the fact

f the nephew being out of sight, out of mind in America.
Matt Tompkins

[Wjhonson]

Recte: I said "testator" below.
Of course I meant no such thing.
The inheritence by precedence would apply to lands of an intestate.

<<What there is, is a precendence for who inherits lands when a testator dies.>>





-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: mllt1 <ml...@le.ac.uk>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

don't know to what you could possibly be referring.

here was no law barring half-siblings from inheriting land. Full stop.

never stated there was such a law, and there was in fact, no such law.
What there is, is a precendence for who inherits lands when a testator dies.

F there are full siblings, they would inherit in *preference* to half siblings.

his is not, and was not, any "law barring inheritence to half siblings". Quite

he contrary.
If you die with a spouse no children, the spouse get it.

f you die with no spouse but children, they get it.

f you die with no spouse, no children, but parents, they get it.

f you die with no spouse, no children, and no parents, your FULL siblings get

t.

f you die with no spouse, no children, no parents, and no full siblings, your

ALF siblings get it.
That's the way it's been always. For all time. Since day one of year one :)
Now, show the evidence that there was ever any law barriing half siblings.

<<<You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring

lf-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred

it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the

heritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in

erica).>>>

-----Original Message-----
rom: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
o: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
ent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 1:33 pm
ubject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

n Mar 27, 11:38 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
There was no law against inheritance by half-siblings.
They were not excluded by the law of intestate inheritance
There was no settlement at *this* point and that is the point.
Whether there was a settlement earlier, for an earlier group is not
relevant to THIS point.
It's relevant to THAT point.
If you re read once again what Douglas *initially* said, not what he later
said, and read it carefully with an eye toward the error you will see what
he said, and why it's ridiculous.
Are you claiming that because a person had moved to America they would be
excluded?
Or are you ignoring what Douglas said

ill, I'm afraid your tendency to ellipsis has developed to the point

ere I'm now just not sure what you're trying to say.

ou surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring

lf-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred

it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the

heritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in

erica).

s I understand it, the facts are these: when Henry Somerset died in

31 he left no issue and had no surviving full siblings, but he did

ve a nephew of the full blood (Charles Somerset Smith, son of his

ll sister Mary Joanna), and also a brother (John Somerset) and

veral sisters of the half-blood. If his landed property were not

tailed, and if he did not leave it by his will, then by the

eration of the general law of inheritance it would have gone to his

phew - his half-brother would have been excluded from the succession

the rule against inheritance by siblings of the half-blood.

owever the manor of Acton in fact passed to his half-brother. Why?

cause in 1724 Henry Somerset had created a settlement by which he

cluded his nephew and instead arranged for the manor to descend to

s half-brother.

e don't know why he excluded his nephew from the inheritance in this

y, but one might speculate that it was somehow connected to the fact

the nephew being out of sight, out of mind in America.

att Tompkins
------------------------------

unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

e message

[Matt Tompkins]

> <<<You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring

> half-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred
> to it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the
> Inheritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in
> America).>>>

On Monday, 2 April 2012 21:43:39 UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> I don't know to what you could possibly be referring.
> There was no law barring half-siblings from inheriting land. Full stop.
> I never stated there was such a law, and there was in fact, no such law.
>
> What there is, is a precendence for who inherits lands when a testator dies.
> IF there are full siblings, they would inherit in *preference* to half siblings.
> This is not, and was not, any "law barring inheritence to half siblings". Quite the contrary.
>
> If you die with a spouse no children, the spouse get it.
> If you die with no spouse but children, they get it.
> If you die with no spouse, no children, but parents, they get it.
> If you die with no spouse, no children, and no parents, your FULL siblings get it.
> If you die with no spouse, no children, no parents, and no full siblings, your HALF siblings get it.
>
> That's the way it's been always. For all time. Since day one of year one :)
>
> Now, show the evidence that there was ever any law barriing half siblings.

You are describing the situation in England after the Inheritance Act 1833 - it was that act which for the first time for many centuries allowed half-siblings to inherit, though only with precedence after full siblings. Before 1833 siblings of the half-blood, and their issue, could never inherit, and this had been the law ever since the late thirteenth century. If you want authority for this, look in any book describing the historical development of English land law.

Matt

[Wjhonson]

*Look in any book* is usually what people say when they have no authority upon which to base their claims.

What exactly do you think happened to land when there was no living spouse, no children, no full siblings and no parents?
Do you suppose, even if there were half-siblings that the land did what? Went to the king? Went to a third cousin?
What exactly.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; mllt1 <ml...@le.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: The extended family of Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

> <<<You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring
half-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred
to it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the
Inheritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in
America).>>>

n Monday, 2 April 2012 21:43:39 UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
I don't know to what you could possibly be referring.
There was no law barring half-siblings from inheriting land. Full stop.
I never stated there was such a law, and there was in fact, no such law.

What there is, is a precendence for who inherits lands when a testator dies.
IF there are full siblings, they would inherit in *preference* to half

iblings.
This is not, and was not, any "law barring inheritence to half siblings".

uite the contrary.

If you die with a spouse no children, the spouse get it.
If you die with no spouse but children, they get it.
If you die with no spouse, no children, but parents, they get it.
If you die with no spouse, no children, and no parents, your FULL siblings get

t.
If you die with no spouse, no children, no parents, and no full siblings, your

ALF siblings get it.

That's the way it's been always. For all time. Since day one of year one :)

Now, show the evidence that there was ever any law barriing half siblings.


You are describing the situation in England after the Inheritance Act 1833 - it

as that act which for the first time for many centuries allowed half-siblings

o inherit, though only with precedence after full siblings. Before 1833

iblings of the half-blood, and their issue, could never inherit, and this had

een the law ever since the late thirteenth century. If you want authority for

his, look in any book describing the historical development of English land

aw.
Matt

[Douglas Richardson]

On Apr 2, 4:49 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

< What exactly do you think happened to land when there was no living
spouse, no children, no full siblings and no parents?
< Do you suppose, even if there were half-siblings that the land did
what?  Went to the king?  Went to a third cousin?
< What exactly.

Property not covered by a settlement went to the nearest full blood
kin related within the 2nd or 3rd degrees. If the connection was more
remote than that, then king usually declared the property escheated to
the crown. Half-blood siblings were excluded from inheritance, unless
there had been a property settlement.

However ... the truth is that the king could do as he pleased which is
indicated by the excellent article by Ralph V. Turner entitled
"Exercise of the King's Will in Inheritance of Baronies: The Example
of King John and William Briwerre," published in Albion, Vol. 22, No.
3 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 383-401. Turner gives numerous examples of
where the king frustrated the lawful heirs in obtaining possession of
their inheritance. Turner likewise points out that an inheritance was
not always divided equally among full blood sisters.

The Turner article may be viewed through JSTOR.

[Matt Tompkins]

> > <<<You surely can't really be asserting that there was no law barring
> half-siblings from inheriting land - you yourself previously referred
> to it, and it undoubtedly existed, until it was abolished by the
> Inheritance Act 1833 (in England - it may have lasted longer in
> America).>>>
>

> On Monday, 2 April 2012 21:43:39 UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> I don't know to what you could possibly be referring.
> There was no law barring half-siblings from inheriting land. Full stop.
> I never stated there was such a law, and there was in fact, no such law.
>
> What there is, is a precendence for who inherits lands when a testator dies.
> IF there are full siblings, they would inherit in *preference* to half

> siblings.

> This is not, and was not, any "law barring inheritence to half siblings".

> Quite the contrary.

>
> If you die with a spouse no children, the spouse get it.
> If you die with no spouse but children, they get it.
> If you die with no spouse, no children, but parents, they get it.
> If you die with no spouse, no children, and no parents, your FULL siblings
> get it.

> If you die with no spouse, no children, no parents, and no full siblings,

> your HALF siblings get it.

>
> That's the way it's been always. For all time. Since day one of year one :)
> Now, show the evidence that there was ever any law barriing half siblings.
>
>
> From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
>> You are describing the situation in England after the Inheritance Act 1833

> - it was that act which for the first time for many centuries allowed half-
> siblings to inherit, though only with precedence after full siblings.
> Before 1833 siblings of the half-blood, and their issue, could never
> inherit, and this had been the law ever since the late thirteenth century.
> If you want authority for this, look in any book describing the historical
> development of English land law.
> Matt

On Monday, April 2, 2012 11:49:21 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> *Look in any book* is usually what people say when they have no authority upon which to base their claims.
>
> What exactly do you think happened to land when there was no living spouse, no children, no full siblings and no parents?
> Do you suppose, even if there were half-siblings that the land did what? Went to the king? Went to a third cousin?
> What exactly.

I say 'Look in any book on the subject' when I am unwilling to spend time finding internet-accessible proof of a point which is widely known and uncontroversial, and for which substantiation can be easily obtained by dipping into any of the many books on the subject.

Your confidence in your instinctive knowledge of English legal history is impressive but I am afraid it is misplaced. The subject is vaste and complex and you really would find it useful to invest in a textbook or two. Good starter surveys are John Baker's Introduction to English Legal History and AWB Simpson's History of the Land Law.

Older but still useful textbooks which you might pick up cheaply are Plucknett's Concise History of the Common Law and Holdsworth's Historical Introduction to the Land Law (or his multi-volume History of the English Law - volume III would be relevant to the present point).

All of these will explain about the exclusion of half-blood siblings from inheritance (as will any other legal history covering English land law). I've no idea whether any of them can be read on-line, but I know that Blackstone's Commentaries can be. In them you will find an account of the rules of inheritance (known as the 'canons of ineritance' or 'of descent'), and in particular of the exclusion of siblings of the half-blood, in Book 2, Chapter 14 'Of title by descent' (see the 4th and 5th paragraphs of the Sixth Rule or Canon).

The short (and over-simplified) answer to your question is that before 1833 if someone died intestate without children or their issue and without full siblings or their issue (parents and spouses were irrelevant - see below) then the inheritance of his unentailed property went to what was called collateral heirs, which meant initially to an uncle or to aunts, or to their issue, or if none then to a grand-uncle or to grand-aunts or their issue. Ultimately, if no collateral heirs could be found (there were complicated rules as to how far you looked) it would escheat to the feudal lord or the Crown - but it never went to the intestate's half-blood siblings.

Spouses did not inherit, technically - the inheritance went to someone else, though they did usually get a life interest in one third of the property (widows) or in all the property (widowers, if the Curtesy of England applied).

Until the Inheritance Act 1833 changed the rules, parents could not inherit from their children. This may surprise you, but it is a fact, and any legal history textbook will verify it.

Matt

[MILLARD A.R.]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tompkins [mailto:ml...@le.ac.uk]
> Sent: 03 April 2012 12:47
>
> I say 'Look in any book on the subject' when I am unwilling to spend time
> finding internet-accessible proof of a point which is widely known and
> uncontroversial, and for which substantiation can be easily obtained by
> dipping into any of the many books on the subject.

Just to back up what Matt has said, I located one online source from 1832 which outlines English inheritance laws:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2gIwAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false
"The collateral heir of the person last seized must be his next collateral kinsman *of the whole blood*"
Half-siblings (and half-uncles etc.) were simply not in the default line of inheritance.

Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk
Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/
My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/
GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

[Matt Tompkins]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:35:39 AM UTC+1, MILLARD A.R. wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Tompkins [mailto:ml...@le.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 03 April 2012 12:47
> >
> > I say 'Look in any book on the subject' when I am unwilling to spend time
> > finding internet-accessible proof of a point which is widely known and
> > uncontroversial, and for which substantiation can be easily obtained by
> > dipping into any of the many books on the subject.
>
> Just to back up what Matt has said, I located one online source from 1832 which outlines English inheritance laws:
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2gIwAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false
> "The collateral heir of the person last seized must be his next collateral kinsman *of the whole blood*"
> Half-siblings (and half-uncles etc.) were simply not in the default line of inheritance.

Thank you, Andrew - that book makes interesting reading for an English land lawyer who has sometimes wondered how the transplantation of the common law to the colonies actually worked in practice.

Here is a link to a contemporary English lawbook, written just after the Inheritance Act 1833 had come into effect, which at p. 501 contains a useful table of the persons entitled to inherit, showing the changes effected by the Act.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PHA0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA501&dq=%22canons+of+descent%22+%22half-blood%22&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22canons%20of%20descent%22%20%22half-blood%22&f=false

The table gives each potential heir's priority under both the old, pre-Inheritance Act system (in Roman numerals) and the new, post-1833 system (in Arabic numbers). It will be noticed that although parents (and grandparents) and half-siblings appear in the post-1833 scheme, they had no rights of inheritance under the old system.

And here is the passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 14, to which I drew Will's attention yesterday:

“Thus, the blood of John Stiles being composed of those of Geoffrey Stiles his father and Lucy Baker his mother, therefore his brother Francis, being descended from both the same parents, hath entirely the same blood with John Stiles; or, he is his brother of the whole blood. But if, after the death of Geoffrey, Lucy Baker the mother marries a second husband, Lewis Gay, and hath issue by him ; the blood of this issue, being compounded of the blood of Lucy Baker on the one part, but of that of Lewis Gay (instead of Geoffrey Stiles) on the other part, it hath therefore only half the same ingredients with that of John Stiles; so that he is only his brother of the half blood, and for that reason *they shall never inherit to each other*. [My emphasis – MT]

So also, if the father has two sons, A and B, by different venters or wives ; now these two brethren are not brethren of the whole blood, and therefore *shall never inherit to each other, but the estate shall rather escheat to the lord*. Nay, even if the father dies, and his lands descend to his eldest son A, who enters thereon, and dies seised without issue; still B shall not be heir to this estate, because he is only of the half blood to A, the person last seised : but, had A died without entry, then B might have inherited ; not as heir to A his half-brother, but as heir to their common father, who was the person last actually seised.

This *total exclusion of the half blood from the inheritance*, being almost peculiar to our own law, is looked upon as a stranger hardship by such as are unacquainted with the reasons on which it is grounded.”

Matt Tompkins

[Wjhonson]

But he goes on to explain the reasoning.
And that reasoning shows that it was because of the fee system that the land was in a sense only given to a man and his descendants, not the land in full rights, but only in fee to the lord. The lord does not agree that you can shift it away from the original grant, which was only in the full blood. However, I suspect, in the time period of which we are speaking, that such niceties were commonly ignored. If a man could *will* his land to his half-brother, even in fee, as a subtenant, or a life lease, or what have you, it's effectively stepping outside this boundary already.

So it wasn't a system of prohibiting the half blood, but rather of *reverting* the land to the lord *when* there is no one who matches the language of the original grant and services required to the lord. This has the *effect* of excluding certain types of persons, but this was not a *law* TO exclude them. It was a side effect of the situation of how land passed. A side effect. Not a concretely worded law.

A man may not marry his car is not a law, it's a side effect of another law. It's an implied situation. It's emergent.
My point from beginning to end, was only that there was no such LAW, not there the situation did or did not exist. Blackstone agrees that there was no LAW to this point. Which is why he takes many pages to explain why the situation is the way it is.

At any rate, that was never the system in the colonies afaik, land was given with full rights, there was no lord to whom the land would return, or who had ultimate control over the land or heir. Are there cases in the colonies, where land reverted to a "lord" of the manor ? Without this system, probate should have had the effect of passing the law eventually to the half blood if there was no closer heir. It would not go up the chain and down to some other line.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland


On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:35:39 AM UTC+1, MILLARD A.R. wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tompkins [mailto:ml...@le.ac.uk]
> Sent: 03 April 2012 12:47
>
> I say 'Look in any book on the subject' when I am unwilling to spend time
> finding internet-accessible proof of a point which is widely known and
> uncontroversial, and for which substantiation can be easily obtained by
> dipping into any of the many books on the subject.

Just to back up what Matt has said, I located one online source from 1832

hich outlines English inheritance laws:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2gIwAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false
"The collateral heir of the person last seized must be his next collateral

insman *of the whole blood*"
Half-siblings (and half-uncles etc.) were simply not in the default line of

nheritance.

hank you, Andrew - that book makes interesting reading for an English land

awyer who has sometimes wondered how the transplantation of the common law to

he colonies actually worked in practice.
Here is a link to a contemporary English lawbook, written just after the

nheritance Act 1833 had come into effect, which at p. 501 contains a useful

able of the persons entitled to inherit, showing the changes effected by the

ct.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PHA0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA501&dq=%22canons+of+descent%22+%22half-blood%22&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22canons%20of%20descent%22%20%22half-blood%22&f=false
The table gives each potential heir's priority under both the old,

re-Inheritance Act system (in Roman numerals) and the new, post-1833 system (in

rabic numbers). It will be noticed that although parents (and grandparents)

nd half-siblings appear in the post-1833 scheme, they had no rights of

nheritance under the old system.
And here is the passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 14, to which I

rew Will's attention yesterday:
“Thus, the blood of John Stiles being composed of those of Geoffrey Stiles his

ather and Lucy Baker his mother, therefore his brother Francis, being descended

rom both the same parents, hath entirely the same blood with John Stiles; or,

e is his brother of the whole blood. But if, after the death of Geoffrey, Lucy

aker the mother marries a second husband, Lewis Gay, and hath issue by him ;

he blood of this issue, being compounded of the blood of Lucy Baker on the one

art, but of that of Lewis Gay (instead of Geoffrey Stiles) on the other part,

t hath therefore only half the same ingredients with that of John Stiles; so

hat he is only his brother of the half blood, and for that reason *they shall

ever inherit to each other*. [My emphasis – MT]
So also, if the father has two sons, A and B, by different venters or wives ;

ow these two brethren are not brethren of the whole blood, and therefore *shall

ever inherit to each other, but the estate shall rather escheat to the lord*.

ay, even if the father dies, and his lands descend to his eldest son A, who

nters thereon, and dies seised without issue; still B shall not be heir to this

state, because he is only of the half blood to A, the person last seised : but,

ad A died without entry, then B might have inherited ; not as heir to A his

alf-brother, but as heir to their common father, who was the person last

ctually seised.
This *total exclusion of the half blood from the inheritance*, being almost

eculiar to our own law, is looked upon as a stranger hardship by such as are

nacquainted with the reasons on which it is grounded.”
Matt Tompkins

[Rex Ormerod]

On Apr 4, 5:29 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> But he goes on to explain the reasoning.
> And that reasoning shows that it was because of the fee system that the land was in a sense only given to a man and his descendants, not the land in full rights, but only in fee to the lord.  The lord does not agree that you can shift it away from the original grant, which was only in the full blood.  However,  I suspect, in the time period of which we are speaking, that such niceties were commonly ignored.  If a man could *will* his land to his half-brother, even in fee, as a subtenant, or a life lease, or what have you, it's effectively stepping outside this boundary already.
>
> So it wasn't a system of prohibiting the half blood, but rather of *reverting* the land to the lord *when* there is no one who matches the language of the original grant and services required to the lord.  This has the *effect* of excluding certain types of persons, but this was not a *law* TO exclude them.  It was a side effect of the situation of how land passed.  A side effect.  Not a concretely worded law.
>
> A man may not marry his car is not a law, it's a side effect of another law.  It's an implied situation.  It's emergent.
> My point from beginning to end, was only that there was no such LAW, not there the situation did or did not exist.  Blackstone agrees that there was no LAW to this point.  Which is why he takes many pages to explain why the situation is the way it is.
>
> At any rate, that was never the system in the colonies afaik, land was given with full rights, there was no lord to whom the land would return, or who had ultimate control over the land or heir.  Are there cases in the colonies, where land reverted to a "lord" of the manor ?  Without this system, probate should have had the effect of passing the law eventually to the half blood if there was no closer heir.  It would not go up the chain and down to some other line.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
> To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
>

> Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>

> Sent: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 9:07 am
> Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland
>
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:35:39 AM UTC+1, MILLARD A.R. wrote:
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Matt Tompkins [mailto:ml...@le.ac.uk]
>  > Sent: 03 April 2012 12:47
>
>  > I say 'Look in any book on the subject' when I am unwilling to spend time
>  > finding internet-accessible proof of a point which is widely known and
>  > uncontroversial, and for which substantiation can be easily obtained by
>  > dipping into any of the many books on the subject.
>
>  Just to back up what Matt has said, I located one online source from 1832
> hich outlines English inheritance laws:

>  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2gIwAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&...

>  "The collateral heir of the person last seized must be his next collateral
> insman *of the whole blood*"
>  Half-siblings (and half-uncles etc.) were simply not in the default line of
> nheritance.
>
> hank you, Andrew - that book makes interesting reading for an English land
> awyer who has sometimes wondered how the transplantation of the common law to
> he colonies actually worked in practice.
> Here is a link to a contemporary English lawbook, written just after the
> nheritance Act 1833 had come into effect, which at p. 501 contains a useful
> able  of the persons entitled to inherit, showing the changes effected by the

> ct.  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PHA0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA501&dq=%22canons...

Please would you read a text book on English law first, especially
about the contributions of the common law and statute law, before
displaying your ignorance any further.

In all walks of life, those who know a little, think they know it all,
whilst those who have studied more deeply, realise how much they don't
know. In looking at medieval English land law, and trying to
interpret Blackstone, you are so far out of your depth that there is
no point in trying to explain how much you have got wrong. You still
wouldn't understand.

Read Megarry and Wade first, and then come back to the subject.

Rex Ormerod

[Wjhonson]

Thanks for contributing nothing to this thread!
Very useful!

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Ormerod <rex.o...@googlemail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 4, 5:29 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
But he goes on to explain the reasoning.
And that reasoning shows that it was because of the fee system that the land

as in a sense only given to a man and his descendants, not the land in full

ights, but only in fee to the lord. The lord does not agree that you can shift

t away from the original grant, which was only in the full blood. However, I

uspect, in the time period of which we are speaking, that such niceties were

ommonly ignored. If a man could *will* his land to his half-brother, even in

ee, as a subtenant, or a life lease, or what have you, it's effectively

tepping outside this boundary already.

So it wasn't a system of prohibiting the half blood, but rather of *reverting*

he land to the lord *when* there is no one who matches the language of the

riginal grant and services required to the lord. This has the *effect* of

xcluding certain types of persons, but this was not a *law* TO exclude them.
It was a side effect of the situation of how land passed. A side effect. Not

concretely worded law.

A man may not marry his car is not a law, it's a side effect of another law.
It's an implied situation. It's emergent.
My point from beginning to end, was only that there was no such LAW, not there

he situation did or did not exist. Blackstone agrees that there was no LAW to

his point. Which is why he takes many pages to explain why the situation is

he way it is.

At any rate, that was never the system in the colonies afaik, land was given

ith full rights, there was no lord to whom the land would return, or who had

ltimate control over the land or heir. Are there cases in the colonies, where

and reverted to a "lord" of the manor ? Without this system, probate should

ave had the effect of passing the law eventually to the half blood if there was

in
rabic numbers). It will be noticed that although parents (and grandparents)
nd half-siblings appear in the post-1833 scheme, they had no rights of
nheritance under the old system.
And here is the passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 14, to which

rew Will's attention yesterday:
“Thus, the blood of John Stiles being composed of those of Geoffrey Stiles his
ather and Lucy Baker his mother, therefore his brother Francis, being

escended
rom both the same parents, hath entirely the same blood with John Stiles; or,
e is his brother of the whole blood. But if, after the death of Geoffrey, Lucy
aker the mother marries a second husband, Lewis Gay, and hath issue by him ;
he blood of this issue, being compounded of the blood of Lucy Baker on the one
art, but of that of Lewis Gay (instead of Geoffrey Stiles) on the other part,
t hath therefore only half the same ingredients with that of John Stiles; so
hat he is only his brother of the half blood, and for that reason *they shall
ever inherit to each other*. [My emphasis – MT]
So also, if the father has two sons, A and B, by different venters or wives ;
ow these two brethren are not brethren of the whole blood, and therefore
shall

ever inherit to each other, but the estate shall rather escheat to the lord*.
ay, even if the father dies, and his lands descend to his eldest son A, who
nters thereon, and dies seised without issue; still B shall not be heir to

his
state, because he is only of the half blood to A, the person last seised :

ut,
ad A died without entry, then B might have inherited ; not as heir to A his
alf-brother, but as heir to their common father, who was the person last
ctually seised.
This *total exclusion of the half blood from the inheritance*, being almost
eculiar to our own law, is looked upon as a stranger hardship by such as are
nacquainted with the reasons on which it is grounded.”
Matt Tompkins

Please would you read a text book on English law first, especially

bout the contributions of the common law and statute law, before

isplaying your ignorance any further.
In all walks of life, those who know a little, think they know it all,

hilst those who have studied more deeply, realise how much they don't

now. In looking at medieval English land law, and trying to

nterpret Blackstone, you are so far out of your depth that there is

o point in trying to explain how much you have got wrong. You still

ouldn't understand.
Read Megarry and Wade first, and then come back to the subject.
Rex Ormerod

[Matt Tompkins]

On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:29:32 UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> But he goes on to explain the reasoning.
> And that reasoning shows that it was because of the fee system that the land was in a sense only given to a man and his descendants, not the land in full rights, but only in fee to the lord. The lord does not agree that you can shift it away from the original grant, which was only in the full blood. However, I suspect, in the time period of which we are speaking, that such niceties were commonly ignored. If a man could *will* his land to his half-brother, even in fee, as a subtenant, or a life lease, or what have you, it's effectively stepping outside this boundary already.
>
> So it wasn't a system of prohibiting the half blood, but rather of *reverting* the land to the lord *when* there is no one who matches the language of the original grant and services required to the lord. This has the *effect* of excluding certain types of persons, but this was not a *law* TO exclude them. It was a side effect of the situation of how land passed. A side effect. Not a concretely worded law.
>
> A man may not marry his car is not a law, it's a side effect of another law. It's an implied situation. It's emergent.
> My point from beginning to end, was only that there was no such LAW, not there the situation did or did not exist. Blackstone agrees that there was no LAW to this point. Which is why he takes many pages to explain why the situation is the way it is.
>

No, Will - it was a law. Between the 13th century and 1833, if your half-sibling died intestate seised of unsettled land, you simply could not inherit that land.

>
> At any rate, that was never the system in the colonies afaik, land was given with full rights, there was no lord to whom the land would return, or who had ultimate control over the land or heir. Are there cases in the colonies, where land reverted to a "lord" of the manor ? Without this system, probate should have had the effect of passing the law eventually to the half blood if there was no closer heir. It would not go up the chain and down to some other line.
>

The ultimate lord of all land was the Crown - if there was no intermediate lord who could claim the escheat then the lord to whom it went was the Crown. Since Englishmen took the common law with them when they founded colonies this rule would have applied in those colonies, just as at home (until each individual colony eventually found a reason to change it).

Matt

[Wjhonson]

Please cite your source. Blackstone does not state that it was a law, but rather that it was an effect.

<<No, Will - it was a law. Between the 13th century and 1833, if your

alf-sibling died intestate seised of unsettled land, you simply could not

nherit that land.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 5:56 am
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:29:32 UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
But he goes on to explain the reasoning.
And that reasoning shows that it was because of the fee system that the land

as in a sense only given to a man and his descendants, not the land in full

ights, but only in fee to the lord. The lord does not agree that you can shift

t away from the original grant, which was only in the full blood. However, I

uspect, in the time period of which we are speaking, that such niceties were

ommonly ignored. If a man could *will* his land to his half-brother, even in

ee, as a subtenant, or a life lease, or what have you, it's effectively

tepping outside this boundary already.

So it wasn't a system of prohibiting the half blood, but rather of *reverting*

he land to the lord *when* there is no one who matches the language of the

riginal grant and services required to the lord. This has the *effect* of

xcluding certain types of persons, but this was not a *law* TO exclude them.

t was a side effect of the situation of how land passed. A side effect. Not a

oncretely worded law.

A man may not marry his car is not a law, it's a side effect of another law.

t's an implied situation. It's emergent.
My point from beginning to end, was only that there was no such LAW, not there

he situation did or did not exist. Blackstone agrees that there was no LAW to

his point. Which is why he takes many pages to explain why the situation is

he way it is.

No, Will - it was a law. Between the 13th century and 1833, if your

alf-sibling died intestate seised of unsettled land, you simply could not

nherit that land.
>
At any rate, that was never the system in the colonies afaik, land was given

ith full rights, there was no lord to whom the land would return, or who had

ltimate control over the land or heir. Are there cases in the colonies, where

and reverted to a "lord" of the manor ? Without this system, probate should

ave had the effect of passing the law eventually to the half blood if there was

o closer heir. It would not go up the chain and down to some other line.

The ultimate lord of all land was the Crown - if there was no intermediate lord

ho could claim the escheat then the lord to whom it went was the Crown. Since

nglishmen took the common law with them when they founded colonies this rule

ould have applied in those colonies, just as at home (until each individual

olony eventually found a reason to change it).
Matt

[Rex Ormerod]

On Apr 5, 5:47 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Please cite your source.  Blackstone does not state that it was a law, but rather that it was an effect.
>

Have you really read what Blackstone says?

And do you actually read what Matt Tompkins very patiently explains to
you? Have another look at the reference he gave in his post before
last.

Or else do some work yourself, and start reading the books that he has
already listed as providing information about early land law. This is
all standard uncontroversial stuff, available to anyone who is
prepared to do a bit of work.

Do you realise that in disagreeing with Matt Tompkins you are trying
to argue with a very able and experienced solicitor who specialises in
conveyancing law, both modern and medieval? Try reading:

"'Let's Kill all the Lawyers': Did Fifteenth-Century Peasants Employ
Lawyers when they Conveyed Customary Land?"

in 'Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages' edited Linda
Clark, Boydell Press, 2006.

Once again you have shown how completely out of your depth you are.
Go back to your genealogical dates.

Rex Ormerod

[Wjhonson]

Leave it to Rex to stumble in like a great ox to Right What's Wrong!

Matt did not respond to me except with a knee-jerk.
I did read what Blackstone wrote. You obviously did not.
He very carefully explains why the *situation* is the way it is, which is based on the manner in which lands descend and *why*.
And there was no such *law* to exclude half-siblings, it was a *result* of other issues.

There was no law that read something like:
"I Henry IV hereby enact a law to exclude half-siblings...."

Utter nonsense. Without any basis in fact.
THAT the situation existed is not based on any law stating that particular thing.

Rex says : "In Missouri it's illegal to pump gas while you are naked"
No rex there is no such law. It is illegal to pump gas while you are naked, but there's no law stating that.
Can... you... figure... out... why Rex?
Or are you going to stay in Logic A01 for the rest of your life?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Ormerod <rex.o...@googlemail.com>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 10:35 am
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 5, 5:47 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Please cite your source. Blackstone does not state that it was a law, but

ather that it was an effect.

ave you really read what Blackstone says?
And do you actually read what Matt Tompkins very patiently explains to

ou? Have another look at the reference he gave in his post before

ast.
Or else do some work yourself, and start reading the books that he has

lready listed as providing information about early land law. This is

ll standard uncontroversial stuff, available to anyone who is

repared to do a bit of work.
Do you realise that in disagreeing with Matt Tompkins you are trying

o argue with a very able and experienced solicitor who specialises in

onveyancing law, both modern and medieval? Try reading:
"'Let's Kill all the Lawyers': Did Fifteenth-Century Peasants Employ

awyers when they Conveyed Customary Land?"
in 'Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages' edited Linda

lark, Boydell Press, 2006.
Once again you have shown how completely out of your depth you are.

o back to your genealogical dates.
Rex Ormerod

[Rex Ormerod]

On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Leave it to Rex to stumble in like a great ox to Right What's Wrong!
>
> Matt did not respond to me except with a knee-jerk.
> I did read what Blackstone wrote.  You obviously did not.
> He very carefully explains why the *situation* is the way it is, which is based on the manner in which lands descend and *why*.
> And there was no such *law* to exclude half-siblings, it was a *result* of other issues.
>
> There was no law that read something like:
> "I Henry IV hereby enact a law to exclude half-siblings...."
>
> Utter nonsense.  Without any basis in fact.
> THAT the situation existed is not based on any law stating that particular thing.
>
> Rex says : "In Missouri it's illegal to pump gas while you are naked"
> No rex there is no such law.  It is illegal to pump gas while you are naked, but there's no law stating that.
> Can... you... figure... out... why Rex?
> Or are you going to stay in Logic A01 for the rest of your life?
>

No, you have not read Blackstone. You may have cast your eye over a
couple of paragraphs, but you have not read his introduction, nor the
rest of the chapter, nor anything that would help you to understand
what Blackstone was actually saying.

You think you know what a law looks like, but you don't. I have
already suggested that you read a text book to learn about the common
law and statute law. You are confusing the two, confusing what might
be called 'the law' with 'a law'.

In brief, the common law was the way judges applied and adapted
traditional rules to new situations that appeared before them ('the
law'); statute law consisted of rules invented by the king in
parliament ('a law'). There are areas where 'the law' is absolutely
clear, yet without 'a law' in sight.

Historians collect facts and then try to arrange them in patterns to
explain why they occurred. Common lawyers do the same, collecting
individual decisions by individual judges and then arranging them in
patterns to explain why they reached those decisions. Blackstone was
particularly good at this, which is why his Commentaries were so
influential and remained in print for so long. Good writers on the
law become authorities accepted in court as statements of the law,
especially once they were dead.

At some time a half-sibling applied to a court for land left by an
intestate. The judge refused him on the grounds that only someone of
full-blood could inherit. With other judges doing the same, this
decision became 'the law'. The first decision may even have been made
by the king in parliament under his judicial powers.

Blackstone looked at cases like that, and many others, and then set
out his patterns for inheritance, what he calls canons. But when you
read them, you must have the background that Blackstone explained
earlier on in his book.

You haven't bothered to do your homework. You jump into something you
know nothing about and go off at half cock. You try to base the law
of inheritance on your mangled version of the law on alienation. You
try to use irrelevant analogies. And all because you don't believe
that the law requires any knowledge or expertise before you sound off
about it.

Yet you are the first to criticise those who do the same thing in
genealogy.

If you want to find out more about the common law, then read
Blackstone's introduction -- and then keep going. You might even look
at what Wikipedia has to say. But until you have done some serious
reading, don't imagine that you know anything about English law.

Rex Ormerod

[Wjhonson]

Sorry Rex but you're wrong.
No judge ever ruled that only full siblings could be heirs.
And Blackstone never said that any judge so ruled.
Because no judge so ruled.

What Blackstone said, quite clearly is that this situation was an emergent rule if you will, that arose from other circumstances, that had nothing in particular to do with being a half-sibling in fact.

Rather it had to do with how land was granted in fee, and reverted to the grantor.
*That* this affected half-siblings is as non-sensical as *that* it affected step-parents.
Yes but so ?
It also affected dogs and airplanes and rainy days.

That something has an affect on something else, with the affect of the case never occurring, is quite unlike that something was banned or forbidden or shunned explicitly . They are not the same type of case whatsoever.

That you cannot grasp this trivial point of logic in this situation (not law, not common law, not ruling, not judgement) speaks volumes toward any liklihood that you can contribute in a meaningful way to this thread.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Ormerod <rex.o...@googlemail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 5, 6:48 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Leave it to Rex to stumble in like a great ox to Right What's Wrong!

Matt did not respond to me except with a knee-jerk.
I did read what Blackstone wrote. You obviously did not.
He very carefully explains why the *situation* is the way it is, which is

ased on the manner in which lands descend and *why*.
And there was no such *law* to exclude half-siblings, it was a *result* of

ther issues.

There was no law that read something like:
"I Henry IV hereby enact a law to exclude half-siblings...."

Utter nonsense. Without any basis in fact.
THAT the situation existed is not based on any law stating that particular

hing.

Rex says : "In Missouri it's illegal to pump gas while you are naked"
No rex there is no such law. It is illegal to pump gas while you are naked,

ut there's no law stating that.
Can... you... figure... out... why Rex?
Or are you going to stay in Logic A01 for the rest of your life?

No, you have not read Blackstone. You may have cast your eye over a

ouple of paragraphs, but you have not read his introduction, nor the

est of the chapter, nor anything that would help you to understand

hat Blackstone was actually saying.
You think you know what a law looks like, but you don't. I have

lready suggested that you read a text book to learn about the common

aw and statute law. You are confusing the two, confusing what might

e called 'the law' with 'a law'.
In brief, the common law was the way judges applied and adapted

raditional rules to new situations that appeared before them ('the

aw'); statute law consisted of rules invented by the king in

arliament ('a law'). There are areas where 'the law' is absolutely

lear, yet without 'a law' in sight.
Historians collect facts and then try to arrange them in patterns to

xplain why they occurred. Common lawyers do the same, collecting

ndividual decisions by individual judges and then arranging them in

atterns to explain why they reached those decisions. Blackstone was

articularly good at this, which is why his Commentaries were so

nfluential and remained in print for so long. Good writers on the

aw become authorities accepted in court as statements of the law,

specially once they were dead.
At some time a half-sibling applied to a court for land left by an

ntestate. The judge refused him on the grounds that only someone of

ull-blood could inherit. With other judges doing the same, this

ecision became 'the law'. The first decision may even have been made

y the king in parliament under his judicial powers.
Blackstone looked at cases like that, and many others, and then set

ut his patterns for inheritance, what he calls canons. But when you

ead them, you must have the background that Blackstone explained

arlier on in his book.
You haven't bothered to do your homework. You jump into something you

now nothing about and go off at half cock. You try to base the law

f inheritance on your mangled version of the law on alienation. You

ry to use irrelevant analogies. And all because you don't believe

hat the law requires any knowledge or expertise before you sound off

bout it.
Yet you are the first to criticise those who do the same thing in

enealogy.
If you want to find out more about the common law, then read

lackstone's introduction -- and then keep going. You might even look

t what Wikipedia has to say. But until you have done some serious

eading, don't imagine that you know anything about English law.
Rex Ormerod

[Rex Ormerod]

On Apr 5, 11:23 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Sorry Rex but you're wrong.
> No judge ever ruled that only full siblings could be heirs.
> And Blackstone never said that any judge so ruled.
> Because no judge so ruled.
>
> What Blackstone said, quite clearly is that this situation was an emergent rule if you will, that arose from other circumstances, that had nothing in particular to do with being a half-sibling in fact.
>
> Rather it had to do with how land was granted in fee, and reverted to the grantor.
> *That* this affected half-siblings is as non-sensical as *that* it affected step-parents.
> Yes but so ?
> It also affected dogs and airplanes and rainy days.
>
> That something has an affect on something else, with the affect of the case never occurring, is quite unlike that something was banned or forbidden or shunned explicitly .  They are not the same type of case whatsoever.
>
> That you cannot grasp this trivial point of logic in this situation (not law, not common law, not ruling, not judgement) speaks volumes toward any liklihood that you can contribute in a meaningful way to this thread.
>

You didn't read what Matt Thompson explained to you on 4 April. He
quoted the passage from Blackstone that explains why the law says that
the half-brother may not inherit. It is absolutely specific. There
is nothing 'emergent' about it.

Rex Ormerod

Matt wrote the following:

And here is the passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 14,

to which I drew Will's attention yesterday:

“Thus, the blood of John Stiles being composed of those of Geoffrey

Stiles his father and Lucy Baker his mother, therefore his brother
Francis, being descended from both the same parents, hath entirely the
same blood with John Stiles; or, he is his brother of the whole blood.
But if, after the death of Geoffrey, Lucy Baker the mother marries a
second husband, Lewis Gay, and hath issue by him ; the blood of this
issue, being compounded of the blood of Lucy Baker on the one part,

but of that of Lewis Gay (instead of Geoffrey Stiles) on the other

part, it hath therefore only half the same ingredients with that of
John Stiles; so that he is only his brother of the half blood, and for
that reason *they shall never inherit to each other*. [My emphasis –

MT]

So also, if the father has two sons, A and B, by different venters or

wives ; now these two brethren are not brethren of the whole blood,
and therefore *shall never inherit to each other, but the estate shall
rather escheat to the lord*. Nay, even if the father dies, and his
lands descend to his eldest son A, who enters thereon, and dies seised
without issue; still B shall not be heir to this estate, because he is
only of the half blood to A, the person last seised : but, had A died
without entry, then B might have inherited ; not as heir to A his half-

brother, but as heir to their common father, who was the person last

actually seised.

This *total exclusion of the half blood from the inheritance*, being

almost peculiar to our own law, is looked upon as a stranger hardship
by such as are unacquainted with the reasons on which it is grounded.”

[Wjhonson]

Which was pointless, since I'd read that passage before Matt quoted it without explanation.
He did not *explain* the passage, he *cited* the passage.

But regardless, the passage is very clear on a *portion* of what Blackstone said, which was to *explain* why the half-blood would not inherit, which has nothing whatsoever... (I say again) nothing whatsoever to do with a *law* existing to exclude the half-blood.

The situation is based on how the land was granted to the blood of a person, who the whole blood descendants of that person, etc.
And this situation does not specifically state anything at all about half-blood. That's a negative voided area which is not addressed whatsoever.

That a grant addresses descendents *with red hair* says nothing at all about *blondes*. So there is no *law* *excluding* anything at all.

There is a grant *including* certain individuals which has the *effect* of excluding others
This is not a positive statement, it's an exclusion by negation or by silence.
Quite a different animal entirely.

I've now explained this point to you Rex, three times, and you still are unlikely to grasp of what I'm speaking.
So be it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Ormerod <rex.o...@googlemail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 4:50 pm
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 5, 11:23 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Sorry Rex but you're wrong.
No judge ever ruled that only full siblings could be heirs.
And Blackstone never said that any judge so ruled.
Because no judge so ruled.

What Blackstone said, quite clearly is that this situation was an emergent

ule if you will, that arose from other circumstances, that had nothing in

articular to do with being a half-sibling in fact.

Rather it had to do with how land was granted in fee, and reverted to the

rantor.
*That* this affected half-siblings is as non-sensical as *that* it affected

tep-parents.
Yes but so ?
It also affected dogs and airplanes and rainy days.

That something has an affect on something else, with the affect of the case

ever occurring, is quite unlike that something was banned or forbidden or

hunned explicitly . They are not the same type of case whatsoever.

That you cannot grasp this trivial point of logic in this situation (not law,

ot common law, not ruling, not judgement) speaks volumes toward any liklihood

hat you can contribute in a meaningful way to this thread.

You didn't read what Matt Thompson explained to you on 4 April. He

uoted the passage from Blackstone that explains why the law says that

he half-brother may not inherit. It is absolutely specific. There

s nothing 'emergent' about it.
Rex Ormerod
Matt wrote the following:
And here is the passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 14,

o which I drew Will's attention yesterday:
“Thus, the blood of John Stiles being composed of those of Geoffrey

tiles his father and Lucy Baker his mother, therefore his brother

rancis, being descended from both the same parents, hath entirely the

ame blood with John Stiles; or, he is his brother of the whole blood.

ut if, after the death of Geoffrey, Lucy Baker the mother marries a

econd husband, Lewis Gay, and hath issue by him ; the blood of this

ssue, being compounded of the blood of Lucy Baker on the one part,

ut of that of Lewis Gay (instead of Geoffrey Stiles) on the other

art, it hath therefore only half the same ingredients with that of

ohn Stiles; so that he is only his brother of the half blood, and for

hat reason *they shall never inherit to each other*. [My emphasis –

T]
So also, if the father has two sons, A and B, by different venters or

ives ; now these two brethren are not brethren of the whole blood,

nd therefore *shall never inherit to each other, but the estate shall

ather escheat to the lord*. Nay, even if the father dies, and his

ands descend to his eldest son A, who enters thereon, and dies seised

ithout issue; still B shall not be heir to this estate, because he is

nly of the half blood to A, the person last seised : but, had A died

ithout entry, then B might have inherited ; not as heir to A his half-

rother, but as heir to their common father, who was the person last

ctually seised.
This *total exclusion of the half blood from the inheritance*, being

lmost peculiar to our own law, is looked upon as a stranger hardship

y such as are unacquainted with the reasons on which it is grounded.”

[Rex Ormerod]

On Apr 6, 1:12 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>But regardless, the passage is very clear on a *portion* of what
>Blackstone said, which was to *explain* why the half-blood would not
>inherit, which has nothing whatsoever... (I say again) nothing
>whatsoever to do with a *law* existing to exclude the half-blood.

You imagine there was no law because you can only think in terms of
statute law. Blackstone was writing about the law. He finishes the
section by saying "This total exclusion of the half blood from the
inheritance, being almost peculiar to our own law..."

The only reason why half-blood could not inherit was by operation of
the law. Blackstone, who was a lawyer, could see there was a law.
Matt Tompkins, who is a lawyer, can see there was a law. I, who was a
lawyer until I retired, can see there was a law.

You, who are not a lawyer, are the only one who cannot see it, because
you can only think in terms of one kind of law. I have tried to
explain that there is more than one kind of law. But you dismiss it
as irrelevant.

I am now going to bed.

Rex Ormerod

[Wjhonson]

And yet there was no law.
I don't care if all nine Supreme Court Justices side with you.
"Our Law" and "A Law" are not the same universe.

There was no law, statute, or by example, or by judgement, or by convention that stated that half-blood could not inherit. It was an entirely moot point. Why was it moot? Because the precendence of inheritence never extended to this level and that was the very point.

There was no law that grandparents could not inherit.
There was no law that stepparents could not inherit.
There was no law that your donkey could not inherit.

This is not statute law to which I refer. It includes common law, that is, the common usage, judgement, position, pathway, manner, mode, and method.

Why was there no such statute law? Because it was a moot point. The grant was made to a person and their descendents of their own blood or to a couple and their descendants of their own blood. That was the primary driver and basis of who could inherit. There was no need to say "Oh we didn't mean what we just said" !!

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Ormerod <rex.o...@googlemail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 6:21 pm
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Matt Tompkins]

On Apr 6, 3:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  And yet there was no law.
> I don't care if all nine Supreme Court Justices side with you.
> "Our Law" and "A Law" are not the same universe.
>
> There was no law, statute, or by example, or by judgement, or by convention that stated that half-blood could not inherit.  It was an entirely moot point.  Why was it moot?  Because the precendence of inheritence never extended to this level and that was the very point.
>
> There was no law that grandparents could not inherit.
> There was no law that stepparents could not inherit.
> There was no law that your donkey could not inherit.
>
> This is not statute law to which I refer.  It includes common law, that is, the common usage, judgement, position, pathway, manner, mode, and method.
>
> Why was there no such statute law?  Because it was a moot point.  The grant was made to a person and their descendents of their own blood or to a couple and their descendants of their own blood.  That was the primary driver and basis of who could inherit.  There was no need to say "Oh we didn't mean what we just said" !!

This is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with
every fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the
historical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a
kindness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:
how were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any
particular source, or do they derive entirely from your own
ruminations?

To Rex: thank you for your kind words earlier, and for your valiant
attempts to cast light. You can lead a horse to water (or in this
case, drag the the water trough across the yard and place it under the
horse's nose), but you just can't make it drink.

Matt

[Rex Ormerod]

On Apr 6, 3:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>There was no law, statute, or by example, or by judgement, or by
>convention that stated that half-blood could not inherit. It was an
>entirely moot point. Why was it moot? Because the precendence of
>inheritence never extended to this level and that was the very point.

...

>Why was there no such statute law? Because it was a moot point. The
>grant was made to a person and their descendents of their own blood
>or to a couple and their descendants of their own blood. That was
>the primary driver and basis of who could inherit.

What is your source for saying that this principle prevents the
application as law of Blackstone, Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 14, on the
exclusion of the half-blood?

Rex Ormerod

[Rex Ormerod]

Matt

My apologies for my previous post. I did not realise that you had
already posted your point, which is much better than mine.

Will

Don't bother answering my previous post. It wouldn't produce anything
worthwhile.

Rex Ormerod

[Wjhonson]

I read what Blackstone said, and comprehended why he was saying it the way he was.
There is yet a fibre that doubts it, but the other 234 fibres believe it. Which is as it should be.

If there had been a statute law, or even a judgement on this point, it would have been mentioned.
However there is not. There is no precedent for such a ruling, because the entire basis for such a thing is moot.
That was his point. That's my point.

That no one has yet, found any such case, or any such ruling, in the entire 800 years of common law (give or take whatever), backs me up entirely.

<<This is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with

very fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the

istorical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a

indness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:

ow were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any

articular source, or do they derive entirely from your own

uminations?>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 2:02 am
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 6, 3:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
And yet there was no law.
I don't care if all nine Supreme Court Justices side with you.
"Our Law" and "A Law" are not the same universe.

There was no law, statute, or by example, or by judgement, or by convention

hat stated that half-blood could not inherit. It was an entirely moot point.
Why was it moot? Because the precendence of inheritence never extended to this

evel and that was the very point.

There was no law that grandparents could not inherit.
There was no law that stepparents could not inherit.
There was no law that your donkey could not inherit.

This is not statute law to which I refer. It includes common law, that is,

he common usage, judgement, position, pathway, manner, mode, and method.

Why was there no such statute law? Because it was a moot point. The grant

as made to a person and their descendents of their own blood or to a couple and

heir descendants of their own blood. That was the primary driver and basis of

ho could inherit. There was no need to say "Oh we didn't mean what we just

aid" !!

his is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with

very fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the

istorical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a

indness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:

ow were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any

articular source, or do they derive entirely from your own

uminations?
To Rex: thank you for your kind words earlier, and for your valiant

ttempts to cast light. You can lead a horse to water (or in this

ase, drag the the water trough across the yard and place it under the

orse's nose), but you just can't make it drink.
Matt

[Wjhonson]

P.S. He was stating this section *because* their had been any prior rulings on this point.
He was stating it to explain *WHY* there had been *NO* prior rulings on this point.
Quite something else entirely.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

To: mllt1 <ml...@le.ac.uk>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 9:18 am
Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

I read what Blackstone said, and comprehended why he was saying it the way he was.
There is yet a fibre that doubts it, but the other 234 fibres believe it. Which is as it should be.

If there had been a statute law, or even a judgement on this point, it would have been mentioned.
However there is not. There is no precedent for such a ruling, because the entire basis for such a thing is moot.
That was his point. That's my point.

That no one has yet, found any such case, or any such ruling, in the entire 800 years of common law (give or take whatever), backs me up entirely.

<<This is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with

very fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the

istorical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a

indness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:

ow were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any

articular source, or do they derive entirely from your own

uminations?>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 2:02 am

Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 6, 3:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
And yet there was no law.
I don't care if all nine Supreme Court Justices side with you.
"Our Law" and "A Law" are not the same universe.

There was no law, statute, or by example, or by judgement, or by convention

hat stated that half-blood could not inherit. It was an entirely moot point.
Why was it moot? Because the precendence of inheritence never extended to this

evel and that was the very point.

There was no law that grandparents could not inherit.
There was no law that stepparents could not inherit.
There was no law that your donkey could not inherit.

This is not statute law to which I refer. It includes common law, that is,

he common usage, judgement, position, pathway, manner, mode, and method.

Why was there no such statute law? Because it was a moot point. The grant

as made to a person and their descendents of their own blood or to a couple and

heir descendants of their own blood. That was the primary driver and basis of

ho could inherit. There was no need to say "Oh we didn't mean what we just

aid" !!

his is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with

very fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the

istorical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a

indness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:

ow were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any

articular source, or do they derive entirely from your own

uminations?
To Rex: thank you for your kind words earlier, and for your valiant

ttempts to cast light. You can lead a horse to water (or in this

ase, drag the the water trough across the yard and place it under the

orse's nose), but you just can't make it drink.
Matt

[Wjhonson]

I can't talk.


P.S. He was NOT stating this section *because* their had been any prior rulings on this point.

He was stating it to explain *WHY* there had been *NO* prior rulings on this point.
Quite something else entirely.








-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: mllt1 <ml...@le.ac.uk>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 9:18 am

Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

I read what Blackstone said, and comprehended why he was saying it the way he was.
There is yet a fibre that doubts it, but the other 234 fibres believe it. Which is as it should be.

If there had been a statute law, or even a judgement on this point, it would have been mentioned.
However there is not. There is no precedent for such a ruling, because the entire basis for such a thing is moot.
That was his point. That's my point.

That no one has yet, found any such case, or any such ruling, in the entire 800 years of common law (give or take whatever), backs me up entirely.

<<This is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with

very fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the

istorical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a

indness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:

ow were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any

articular source, or do they derive entirely from your own

uminations?>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 2:02 am

Subject: Re: Half-siblings [was:] Mary Johanna Somerset, of Maryland

On Apr 6, 3:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
And yet there was no law.
I don't care if all nine Supreme Court Justices side with you.
"Our Law" and "A Law" are not the same universe.

There was no law, statute, or by example, or by judgement, or by convention

hat stated that half-blood could not inherit. It was an entirely moot point.
Why was it moot? Because the precendence of inheritence never extended to this

evel and that was the very point.

There was no law that grandparents could not inherit.
There was no law that stepparents could not inherit.
There was no law that your donkey could not inherit.

This is not statute law to which I refer. It includes common law, that is,

he common usage, judgement, position, pathway, manner, mode, and method.

Why was there no such statute law? Because it was a moot point. The grant

as made to a person and their descendents of their own blood or to a couple and

heir descendants of their own blood. That was the primary driver and basis of

ho could inherit. There was no need to say "Oh we didn't mean what we just

aid" !!

his is just crazy talk, Will, but I can see that you believe it with

very fibre of your being, so I will abandon my efforts to explain the

istorical point of view and leave you in peace. It would be a

indness, though, if you would satisfy my curiosity on one question:

ow were these truths were revealed to you? Are they based on any

articular source, or do they derive entirely from your own

uminations?
To Rex: thank you for your kind words earlier, and for your valiant

ttempts to cast light. You can lead a horse to water (or in this

ase, drag the the water trough across the yard and place it under the

orse's nose), but you just can't make it drink.
Matt

[Matt Tompkins]

On Apr 6, 5:18 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I read what Blackstone said, and comprehended why he was saying it the way he was.
> There is yet a fibre that doubts it, but the other 234 fibres believe it. Which is as it should be.
>
> If there had been a statute law, or even a judgement on this point, it would have been mentioned.
> However there is not.  There is no precedent for such a ruling, because the entire basis for such a thing is moot.
> That was his point.  That's my point.
>

> That no one has yet, found any such case, or any such ruling, in the entire 800 years of common law (give or take whatever), backs me up entirely.
>


Thank you, Will. So it is all based solely on a reading of
Blackstone's statement of the sixth rule? Specifically, on his
comment that the 6th rule is more in the nature of an auxiliary rule
of evidence than a primary rule of descent, and on his failure to cite
any case law. Small foundations on which to erect such a vast
edifice.

Unfortunately you have built on sand. Blackstone's 'rule of evidence'
was nevertheless a rule of law and his distinction, repeated by no one
else, before him or after him, is essentially meaningless.

His failure to mention any case law is equally lacking in significance
- in fact there has been plenty. If you were to look in other
authorities, including some of the modern historical studies I
recommended to you earlier, you would find it - a whole series of
cases from the reigns of Edward I and II. By Edward III's time the
principle had become established law and ceased to give rise to
litigation, though thereafter it was often referred to, as established
law, in cases turning on other points.

Here is an example, a 1325 case report from David Seipp's magnificent
Yearbook website:

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/display.php?id=5728

Matt
(I knew I shouldn't have asked that one last question.)

[Brian Hessick]

Regarding Edward Maria Somerset and his 1st wife:

I am looking for proof that her name was Clare Calvert.
In a pedigree drawn in 1717, by Benedict Leonard Calvert Esq. (son of Benedict Leonard Calvert 4th Lord Baltimore), he states that his grandfather, Charles Calvert, had two daughters by the names of Jane (1) and Ann (2). Is there a document or a plaque that states her name that can be referenced?

-Brian Hessick