RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: kiya on Wednesday 20 August 14 13:40 BST (UK)
-
I've just been given some help on another part of the forum in deciphering a will, and it turns out the writer used "reputed wife" and "reputed son" to refer to his first wife (already deceased) and the son he had by her. He wrote: "I give and bequeath unto my reputed son William Grayson whom I had by my late wife or reputed wife Rosanna".
Can anyone give me an idea of why it would be written that way?
-
Reputed: Generally believed, accounted, or reckoned to be, supposed or alleged.
Stan
-
Is the late wife and Rosanna the same person?
-
Thanks Stan, so basically what it means in any other context. I suppose it's because it's an official document? Earlier in the will he mentions a brother and sister, but these don't have reputed in front of them.
Milliepede - yes, they're the same person.
-
I guess the brothers and sisters are actual brothers and sisters. But it sounds as if Rosanna and he never legally married.
-
That's the strange thing - William married Rosanna in 1798. He names a woman, Martha Deakin, at the beginning of his will as "my wife under the name of Martha Grayson with my full authority and whom I consider to be my wife, however the law may be to the contrary". He was living with her at the time of writing his will (1839) and Rosanna had died years earlier (1824).
-
So it sounds like the "reputed" son was because he was the son of Martha Grayson who wasn't officially his wife.
The son being called William Grayson is a bit of a giveaway. When was William Grayson born - during the life of Rosanna or after her death?
"late wife or reputed wife" seems an odd way of putting it if they were talking about the same woman. To me it reads two different women and he would have known which one had his child but hey what do I know!
-
It sounds to me as though there was some doubt about the lawfulness of his marriage to Rosanna, and therefore the legitimacy of their son William.
Whether such doubt was cast by others, or by William (senior) himself, is not clear. Perhaps he considered the marriage to Rosanna void or voidable for some reason (and thought himself therefore free to marry Martha in Rosanna's lifetime) but the law did not agree with him.
Did he marry or purport to marry Martha at any stage (whether during Rosanna's life or later)?
-
William & Martha?
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NVT9-R6N
-
Sounds more like a bitter, legally frustrated, angry man and doesn't like the law as it stood or how he understood it, legally married Rosanna had a child William, maybe or maybe not married Martha and was informed 'his' legal wife although dead was Rosanna and as William's mother possibly was informed he had to say 'wife' instead of putting 1st wife ( if he married number 2) he wrote 'reputed' wife ......
Can only guess suppose it depends on the terms of the Will and what was bequeathed and to who ;D
-
avm228 - :o possibly! But if that record is him, then surely that marriage was legal as Rosanna had been dead several years at that point?
William Grayson was born during Rosanna's lifetime (1806).
iluleah - the will is fascinating (it's my husband's family, I've never come across any of my ancestors writing wills!). It bequeaths a fair amount of money to a couple of women (£19 and £50)who don't have the Grayson name, but presumably William's daughters (although oddly they're not stated as such). His son doesn't appear at all until the second page. Then there's a whole section about if his son should be made bankrupt, which I haven't transcribed yet, but his son was made bankrupt in 1850.
Another thing that might help me at some point is there was a case brought by William Grayson (not sure which one yet, I'm guessing the "reputed son") against Martha Deakin, the other executors of the will and what appear to be William's grandchildren, in 1845. I'm just waiting on the National Archives for that.
Curiouser and curiouser...
-
From what you have said I would definitely say it was the language of a man upset by 'family' and situation.
I happened upon a Will by accident of my great grandfather, so being nosy( all in the name of FH research of course ;D ;D) I purchased a copy.
He was married to wife number 2 had left wife number 1 in the rather large farm who he had had 9 children with, two boys died in infancy, leaving 3 boys the rest girls, he waited for wife number 1 to die before he married gf. In his Will he leaves everything to second wife and £100 on his 21st birthday to his youngest son.
That threw the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak for me because as a child my grandfather and his two brothers were in partnership and ran the farm, my grandfather lived in at the farm, the farm business purchased another farm which one great uncle lived in in the same village while the other great uncle lived miles away in another village in a rented farm house and as a child I often wondered why especially as there were other farms bought/owned in the village which they rented out to workers, then brother number 3 was "bought out" and migrated to the other side of the World.... so years later and nosy I thought Ah Ah he was a half brother as that is logically( in my head) why he was not 'accepted' but he wasn't I purchased his birth cert, he was a full brother, but clearly had sided with his dad, had got his inheritance and the others held it against him
-
Deny the truth or validity of will.
-
avm228 - :o possibly! But if that record is him, then surely that marriage was legal as Rosanna had been dead several years at that point?
Another thing that might help me at some point is there was a case brought by William Grayson (not sure which one yet, I'm guessing the "reputed son") against Martha Deakin, the other executors of the will and what appear to be William's grandchildren, in 1845. I'm just waiting on the National Archives for that.
The Grayson v Deakin litigation may advance matters. In an 1849 law report William is reported as having left a widow, Ruth Grayson, when he died in 1843.
Ruth's entitlement under the 1839 will was £20 per annum, but Martha was to have an annuity of £100.
Martha Deakin is referred to as Deakin (not Grayson) and not as having been a lawful wife of William.
So perhaps Ruth is the fly in the ointment, not Rosanna?
-
I see that in the will he bequeaths the £20 per annum to "Mrs Ruth Grayson of Sheffield in the county of York during her life".
-
This looks a likely Ruth in 1841:
Mulberry Road, Sheffield
George MORTON 45 Table knife cutter
Maria do 45
Selina do 20 Dressmaker
Ruth GRAYSON 65
Ann SANDERSON 5
Sarah MORTON 20
William do 3
all born in county
-
Others mentioned in William's will include:
Maria Morton wife of George Morton of Sheffield (legacy of £19) - see that 1841 census
Sarah Partridge wife of Richard Partridge of Sheffield (legacy of £50).
Daughters by the marriage to Ruth, perhaps?
Possible baptism for Maria in 1791: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/N5V4-CJW
-
Thanks so much for all your input. Sounds like William had quite a complicated life! Where is the 1849 law report you mention?
-
I can send you a copy of the law report if you PM me an email address. It isn't publicly available online.
-
Just to come back to the original question, the use of the expression "my wife or reputed wife" will have been used to cover off the possibility - however slight it may have been - that somebody would allege that he had not validly married her.
If he had simply said "To my wife X", and the residuary legatee had then come along and established that he was not validly married to X, then the draftsman feared that in that contingency the gift to X would fail, and the residuary legatee would benefit.
On the other had, if the legacy was to "my wife or reputed wife X" then establishing that the marriage was invalid would not assist the residuary legatee any, because X would still fall within the wording "my ... reputed wife".
So this wording does not imply that there was, or that he believed there was, any deficiency in his marriage. It does, however, imply that he feared that somebody might seek to allege that there was a deficiency in his marriage, and he wished to cover off that possibility and ensure that it couldn't be the occasion of the whole of his estate going to members of my profession rather than his chosen beneficiaries.