Help with William Miller's will, please?

[KiteRunner]

I have just received the will of William Miller, yeoman of Inskip with Sowerby, Lancashire. The will was written 24th November 1809, and proved 12th November 1812. He lists all his children and says who all the daughters married (he even helpfully mentions one who he left nothing to because she was already provided for!) The eldest son was called William, and it says, "if my said son William Miller shall happen to have a son on the body of his present or any future wife begotten or to be begotten, who shall be born in the lifetime of the said William Miller or in due time afterwards, then and immediately upon the birth of such son..." blah blah blah, the gist of it being that if there was no such son of William jr's then the stuff would go to Thomas Miller, the son of William senior's second son Richard.

But I'm trying to make William jr be the William who was born 19th March 1766, and he had a son also called William who was born 5th March 1807. I haven't found out when Thomas was born yet, but is it possible that the above means that William jr could have had a son when the will was written, but William sr was more confident of Thomas's survival because Thomas was older and so many children died young? Or does it definitely mean that William jr didn't have a son? There is a William Miller age 40 on the 1851 census who looks as though he should be the one, although his age is a little bit out.

[Night Owl]

Could the William born in March 1807 have died in infancy (before the will was written)and they then had another son also called William?

Jackie

[dicole]

Hi

I think William Senior means William Junior is married but has not produced any (living) sons at the date of the writing of the will.

If William Junior was born in 1766 and was 43 and married but no sons in 1809 when his father wrote the will, obviously his father had doubts or fears that he ever would. He also thought he might beget a child but die before it was born.

But this does not indicate whether William Junior might have had any daughters, presumably they would not have got anything from their grandfather.

Do you know the name of William Juniors wife (his present wife) and if they had any daughters before 1809 ?

[Roger in Sussex]

I think perhaps the bit about a son begotten or to be begotten etc. might be a careful lawyer dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's, because it covers the case of William's wife happening to be already pregnant at the time the will was written, as well as her giving birth 'in due time' after William's decease, rather than reflecting any specific anxiety on the part of William senior.

Roger

[Just Gillian]

If William senior specifically mentions in his will that Richard has a son, then I would think it means that William junior had no son at the time it was written.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

But I'm trying to make William jr be the William who was born 19th March 1766, and he had a son also called William who was born 5th March 1807.

*trying to make" !! lol

Was William b March 1807 definitely still alive when his grandfather's will was written?

If he was then I would be thinking you have the wrong life path for William b 1766.

[KiteRunner]

I've found a likely candidate for William born 1807 on the later censuses, also I got his details from a list of the Millers that OH's granny did a long time ago - she must have copied it out from a family Bible or similar, because it has the dates of birth for them all, whereas the parish register only has baptism dates. William jr had loads of daughters before the first son (William 1807), who have all the same names as the daughters of the William who died in 1812, i.e. if he is the right one then they would be named after his sisters etc. The tree that OH's granny did gives dates of death for most of the Millers, and for the women it doesn't give their married names but they have indeed turned out to have died on those dates, so I'm sure her tree is right. She didn't put in a date of death for William born 1807, which strongly suggests to me that he didn't die in infancy, but I suppose it doesn't prove it. The one I've found on the censuses is a rich farmer born in Inskip who can't decide whether his surname is Miller or Mil(l)ner, which matches the putative grandfather perfectly! Everything fits together except for that bit of the will. I wonder if it could have been written before the 1807 birth but it just took him years to get it signed? Not very likely, I suppose.

Oh well, I shall have to do some more digging around to see if I can get definite proof.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Hmm......I hate things like this. It's like when you get to the end of a jigsaw and the last piece is missing :(

Was the 1807 son the last child to be born?

[KiteRunner]

No, the last one was OH's actual ancestor, Edmund, born 30 Oct 1811. When I originally ordered the will, I had a faint hope that it would mention Edmund! He has a farm of 5 acres in Inskip on the 1851 census, but it doesn't give the name of it, annoyingly enough, as there is a name given in the will (looks like "Nook House" or something similar?) But it looks as though William Miller who died 1812 owned a lot of land anyway. I need to go through the whole will picking it out. At the moment I'm trying to find out if any of his daughters might have had no surviving children and left a will, but no luck so far.

[samesizedfeet]

I have an example of a Will written earlier but not signed for a while.

William Rennoldson signed a 6 page Will in November of 1834. It's very specific about who gets what and who then gets it if they die - and names a great number of his distant family. It mentions daughter from 1st marriage Margaret, his wife Emma who he married in February 1834. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of his daughter Emma born August 1834.

Daughter Emma gets her bequest in a codicil on 15 February 1836.

There's a further two codicils BOTH dated 15 February 1837. The fact he added two bits on the same date does make me think these things were written out by the legals and bought to be signed when convenient or it became more important (William died two weeks later)

[KiteRunner]

Now, having taken a step back from it for a little while, I wonder whether that William on the censuses could be a son of Richard's? After all, his age isn't quite consistent with being born 1807. Maybe the other William did die in infancy and that fact just got left off the list? William born 1766 didn't leave a will, but maybe I should order his admon to see what it says (double-checks that I haven't already got it!)