Edwards of Lelant c. 1580-1670 Sept 13, 2007 17:21:19 GMT -5
Post by Zenobia on Sept 13, 2007 17:21:19 GMT -5
ianjtrewhella said:That's it - abuse and then
My thinking is that, as in the case of James Trewheela's Will of 1764, "my now wife" seems to have emphasis on the "now" - meaning this is not a first marriage.
In this case it has shown to be a third marriage.
Taking into consideration James Trewhella's active marital history, I would suggest that he was not at all unaware of the possibility of him taking a fourth wife after writing his will... ;D
In this case the girls are named under what would appear to be their maiden names and then stated as 'now wife of ...' so there is, to my mind, some difference.
I will stick to my comments here as it would certainly appear all is not 'cut and dried' and I think we need to keep an open mind and view all such documents, and references, with caution.
Yes, the troubling part is that we have one Thomas girl named as 'now wife of' and another simply named 'wife of'. It is entirely possibly I may have left out the second 'now' when copying, so I need to check that. (I was planning a trip to the FHC tonight, but am without transportation again, so it will have to wait till next week).
It is also possible that Henderson did not copy it correctly. Henderson uses countless abbreviations, and his handwriting is not the easiest to read, so this too is a possibility.
However, a third thought occurred to me. Would the use of 'now wife' be sufficient in legal terms to only be needed once per document, the later 'wife of' then being understood? What causes me to wonder is that we had a similar experience with the 1670 will of Peter Painter. For Trencom's edification, in that nuncupative will, Peter's daughter Catherine is referred to as 'the now wife' of Robert Cornow, but his daughter Sibella, named shortly afterward is simply called 'the wife of' Mathew Stevens.
We have never found any evidence of Robert having had an earlier wife, and his marriage to Catherine was not 'new' as they had been married at least 16 years by then. So why use the term in the first case, but not the second?
So again, I am wondering if the use of the term in legal documents would then be inclusive of any later relationships of the same type found in the same document; ie: one only has to use it in the first instance to cover all the others?