A Surfeit of Lannings

[Phoenix]

Thomas Lanning in Kington Magna, Dorset had more than his fair share of children:

Elias bp 18 Sept 1769, bur 21 December 1846 in KM
George bp 11 Nov 1770
charles bp 31 May 1772
Tamsey bp 17 October 1776, married Joseph Senior
Timothy bp 3 Aug 1777 will 1833
Barnet bp 18 Apr 1779 carver & gilder of Hatton Garden, London
Meshak bp 14 January 1781 bur 1857 KM
Harry bp 1 January 1784
Edward bp 28 Aug 1785 bur 1853 KM
Luke bur 1852 KM
Jonas bp 6 October 1793
Hester
Job bur 1857 KM

He names them all in his will, made 1814, when his wife Mary was still alive. He dies in 1815, when the will is proved. Their burials put their births in the 1740s.

Mary appears to be bp 1746 the daughter of Thomas Lanning and Jane nee White.

This Thomas made his will in 1804, presumably soon after his wife died: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=View&r=5538&dbid=2119&iid=32451_1831115184_0028-00270&fn=Thomas&ln=Lening&st=r&ssrc=&pid=53857

He mentions his daughter Jenny Lanning, his son Thomas Lanning, his grandson Elias Lanning and

His grandson William, son of his son Thomas, when he shall be 21.

So his son Thomas is not the maker of the will in 1814 who (mercifully!) has no son William.

But why does he refer to his daughter Mary merely as "The wife of my son-in-law Thomas Lanning"? It seems a trifle formal!

[kiterunner]

Maybe he (or his lawyer) was worried that if he said, "My daughter Mary, the wife of Thomas Lanning", it could be interpreted to mean his daughter-in-law, the wife of his son?

[Phoenix]

It could be, Kate.

All the trees on Ancestry have been constructed without access to the wills and have effectively married Mary off to her brother:eek:

I did wonder whether Mary died and her husband remarried to a woman of the same name, but it wouldn't make sense to entrust a stranger in blood (and a woman!) to carry out such a commission.