View Full Version : Three wills questions...
Nothing to add to BK6 from this thread
My McCrerys didn't believe in making wills in the proper format. I have three generations of Robert McCrerys who all wrote their wills alone and unwitnessed and in one case even undated!
Each time, before the will could be proved, a few friends and relatives had to go to court to discuss the handwriting and how long they had known the dec'd etc etc to vouch for the will's authenticity. In the first two cases these friends and relatives were sworn/took an oath at the start of the proceedings. However, in the third case (1829) it particularly states that the the widow and two friends were "sworn on the Holy Evangelist"
So,
Q1) what is the Holy Evangelist?
Q2) is it of any significance?
EDIT - Kate has answered Q3) in the next post
Q3) the last bit of the will says "I beg the executors will accept of ten pounds each for a King" Well, that's what it looks like. What an earth does that mean??!
kiterunner
05-10-10, 10:35
Are you sure it doesn't say Ring? (as in Mourning Ring)
lol!! Yes, it does!! it was the capital letter that threw me :o
Thanks very much :)
Olde Crone
05-10-10, 16:15
Hm. The Orthodox faith talks about the Holy Evangelist and (skimming quickly, so I may have it wrong!) this appears to mean pre-bible beliefs.
So, swearing on the Holy Evangelist would involve no religious book, just a solemn statement, I presume?
OC
Sounds interesting.
The dead man's father was born into a non-con family (don't know what sort though) but the dead man and his siblings were all baptised C of E and so was his daughter. I found one of the executors to the will (not a relative as far as I know) had lots of children born 1800-1817 and had all the surviving ones baptised together in Nov 1817 at St Mary, Whitechapel. The dead man was buried at St George, Bloomsbury when other cousins etc were at Bunhill Fields so he could have had a non-con burial had he wished.
All seems a bit odd.
Olde Crone
05-10-10, 18:40
Well, I suppose one would normally "swear on the bible" for a solemn oath. If you were a noncon, you wouldn't want to swear on the bible, or at least not the New Testament. Perhaps swearing on the Holy Evangelist was an acceptable alternative, before we had the option to Affirm an oath.
Noncons being baptised C of E was quite common as often employers insisted on it. Only if you were a self employed noncon could you have the luxury of deliberately refusing baptism in the C of E.
OC
Mary from Italy
05-10-10, 20:40
I would guess the Holy Evangelist refers to the gospels (the first 4 books of the New Testament), in which case, they'd probably be non-cons.
Olde Crone
05-10-10, 20:47
And of course, by 1829, there was a measure of religious tolerance creeping into things, so people were more in a position to refuse to make religious hypocricies, such as swearing on a bible they did not believe in.
Also - he may have had a noncon burial SERVICE - lots of mine did this, but were buried in the parish churchyard as there was no alternative.
OC
Hmmm.....well they were self employed - I guess they flitted between different relgious groups. I think, because I have a lot of Quakers in my tree, I forget that non-cons often changed their allegiance (OH has families who couldn't decide between Baptist, Methodist and C of E!). My Quaker lot stuck with that in the main.
Anyway, now I have another question!!
If someone joined the army (probaby as a private) in about 1755 and worked their way up via sergent to a commission and retired (half pay) in 1788, would anyone care what denomination they were?
Janet in Yorkshire
06-10-10, 10:43
Was St John (of the gospel) the Holy Evangelist?
I have vague recollections from childhood of some households having a copy of St John's Gospel, a revered, stand alone volume, rather than a Bible or complete New Testament :confused:
(Sometimes a Bible/NT/St John's Gospel AND the Book of Common Prayer stood on display on the sideboard. I think the only time they were ever picked up was for the weekly dusting of the parlour!!)
Jay
Hmmm.....well they were self employed - I guess they flitted between different relgious groups. I think, because I have a lot of Quakers in my tree, I forget that non-cons often changed their allegiance (OH has families who couldn't decide between Baptist, Methodist and C of E!). My Quaker lot stuck with that in the main.
Anyway, now I have another question!!
If someone joined the army (probaby as a private) in about 1755 and worked their way up via sergent to a commission and retired (half pay) in 1788, would anyone care what denomination they were?
I think - you'd have to look it up! - that the army would take anything on two legs for the men, but commissioned officers probably had to be c of e. I don't think it was just the Quakers who didn't go into the armed forces - there were others who weren't pacifist, but baulked at the oath.
I think that sounds reasonable Phoenix!
It took him a couple of decades or more to get his commission - unfortunately no army records have survived about him, but I'm used to that with him being a McCrery! Sometimes I don't know why I bother with this line as they eventually die out (only one person left by 1901), but I think maybe I persevere because, firstly no one else is researching them as there are no known living descendants and secondly I feel my 4xg-grandfather must have put a curse on the first Robert McCrery leading to a lot of infertility and early deaths in his descendents!
Olde Crone
06-10-10, 16:37
I have it in my mind that in order to get a commission in the forces, you have to be C of E. I do know that you couldn't have a commission if you were illegitimate!
OC
So maybe he was C of E but was marrying into a non-con family and so his f-i-l put a curse on the lot of them!
Wiki doesn't fully explain it - as it sounds just anti Catholic, but obviously wasn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.