I cannot understand this will.

[kiterunner]

This might take a while! Firstly, I see that Elizabeth Naylor's will was proved in 1830 but Elizabeth Ariel's will was written in 1823 so it didn't take account of anything she was left by her mother. I don't think her will would need to mention the real estate that her mother left her because of the fact that the mother's will only left her a lifetime use of it and then left it to the grandchildren. But the beginning of Elizabeth Ariel's will says it is "pursuant to the power and authority or several powers and authorities contained in the indenture or deed of Settlement made and executed on or previous to my intermarriage with my said husband the said Myles Ariel." And we don't know what the settlement said (I don't suppose you have a copy of it?) which doesn't help.

How old were Elizabeth Ariel's children when she died, and were any of them married?

[kiterunner]

You might like to have a look at a book on Google book search called "The law of succession: testamentary and intestate By William Searle Holdsworth, C. W. Vickers".

[HarrysMum]

Thanks................The Ariel children were all under 21 at the time their mother died and none had married.

I wonder if the marriage licence would have the "settlement"??

I'll have a look at the book.

[kiterunner]

I don't think the marriage licence would have the settlement. It was a private document and would be kept by the parties involved or their solicitors, and not very many settlement documents have survived. Also it could have been drawn up after the licence. I would love to see my 2xg-grandparents' settlement! It's mentioned in my 2xg-grandfather's will but as far as I know it hasn't survived.

So if all the Ariel children were under 21 and unmarried, they weren't entitled to inherit anything yet but it had to be held in trust for them according to both of those wills.

Got to go and have dinner now...

[Olde Crone]

Surely this just concerns her PERSONAL Estate, i.e. her own money, her own jewellery etc.

The entailments of her mother's Will are nothing to do with her personal estate.

I wonder if the Executors were protecting the children's interests? If Myles was a bit of a spendaholic, he might be flogging his late wife's jewellery etc, and they stepped in to stop him. Just a thought.

At that time, married women could only make a legal Will with the permission of their husband. However, there were many legal safeguards in place to protect a married woman's assets, such as show here - her mother left HER money to her grandchildren.

My family were a crafty lot and anything left to married daughters was always entailed in such a way that hubby couldn't get his hands on it.

OC

[HarrysMum]

Thanks again.

Enjoy your dinner......I'm off to bed soon.

I'm fairly sure the only son who made it to 21 didn't receive anything. His father, Myles Ariel's will leaves 5000 pounds to each of his children on the death of his new wife. he died in 1840 (only a few months after his 1st wife's will fiasco), but his second wife didn't die for another 40 years. By then only one child survived.

[HarrysMum]

Hi OC.................

The trustees were the same for both wills and for the husband's will.

The only difference was one extra solicitor for Elizabeth Ariel's will a Mr Thomas CLARK.

I'm presuming he is a rellie of Lucretia Clark (by now Mrs Myles Ariel) and Edward Clark, husband od one missing Agatha..............lol

Why is it everytime I try to sort this lot I find Clarks?????

Myles should have had enough of his own money, but then he could have been a gambler, drunk, etc. He seemed to be a good Baptist if that makes any difference...lol

[Kit]

Myles and/or his new wife may have been greedy plain and simple.

If only people left a detailed explanation of why they did things, life would be a lot easier.

[HarrysMum]

Aw...Toni. I'm starting to hate this Clark lot even if they are completely innocent of anything, thay annoy me..........lol

I'm off to my bed....catch up in the morning~~~

[Kit]

have a good night. ~~~~