17th century will - unusual bequests

[Hazel17]

I have a 1681 will with bequests to children and grandchildren but I'm not sure if the manner in which the estate has been distributed is usual or a bit odd.

The oldest son (and my ancestor) gets a table, that's it. 2nd son gets house and grounds and to pass on to his son and heirs.

One daughter is to be paid a rent twice yearly and if the rent is unpaid to her then she can claim the house bequested to the second son as her own. She might be a  widow.

One son gets a shilling.

Another son gets an assortment of furniture.

One son is the sole executor of the will but gets nothing. His two children get bequests - beds to the boy and kitchenware for the girl - both aged 10 or under at the time of the will.

Does this all seem fairly standard - I've seen the bequeathing one shilling one in wills before but a executor related this closely getting nothing an the eldest son getting just furniture?? Mind you when the eldest son dies he is describes as a sojourner so maybe his father thought him not the best recipient of the house.

[sharonmx5]

I have come across this sort of thing. It could be that those seemingly receiving little had had their share already.

[PrawnCocktail]

I've met it too. I found this in one Will:

I have before given unto my son Robert and my daughter Elizabeth their shares of my estate, I now give them only 20 shillings each and no more. To my son Joseph £100 at age 21

When you think about it, the oldest son probably got married when parents were about 50 (give or take a few years). If he had to wait for his inheritance for another 20 years, he still had to house and feed his new family meanwhile. So the bank of Mum and Dad often seemed to cough up enough to get him on his feet - but then of course he got nothing later, when the Will prioritised those who needed support - the old, and the unmarried.

[jim1]

It looks like there wasn't much in the way of disposable income, asset rich, cash poor one might say.
So in order to take care of his daughter he's directed that his son pays her rent as an income for her.
If he doesn't he loses the house which guarantees she's taken care of.
A legacy of one shilling is often followed by " to buy a memorial ring/brooch" which is probably the purpose here.
The odd bequests of household items is a necessity as everything on the inventory has to be accounted for.
When the wife is still alive it's quite straightforward as pretty much everything goes to her.

[Hazel17]

Thanks for the responses.
I think I'll have to assume that the children who didn't get a great deal had already had their share.

[eadaoin]

My "dark-grey" sheep great-uncle Richard was left a shilling by his father.
My understanding is that he was effectively being cut out of the will, but if he weren't mentioned at all he could contest it, saying that he'd been forgotten.

It was quite an interesting will . .

Tommy(eldest) got "a shilling as well as all I have already given him."
Richard(second) got "a shilling"
and the others got a variety of amounts, depending on their ages and situations - the third son got property etc, and was made responsible for the youngest son, who was still in his teens.

[ScouseBoy]

The reason may  be associated with who was married, maybe?

[Andrew Tarr]

If the OP has mentioned all the beneficiaries, someone presumably receives any unmentioned 'leftovers' - who will normally be any surviving widow.  She will remain in the house now owned by that son.  Maybe the other sons (except the one with the shilling) are now independent and don't need support?

My Devonshire yeoman ancestor died in 1851 aged 82, leaving over £230 (and his Clock) to various descendants - a tidy sum in those days.  Everything else, after testamentary expenses, went to a son who was his executor, who received no specific money.  There was no widow, and no buildings or land to pass on.  Within a few years that son had decided to try his luck in Ireland.

[PrawnCocktail]

"Unmentioned leftovers" fall to what is called the "residuary legatee", usually the executor. Who can then do with them what seems good to him/her. Money in coat pockets / knicknacks / forgotten savings accounts, personal items ...

The residuary legatee may not have been the widow, but was usually the one who applied for probate, unless otherwise specified