|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 17, 2007 9:59:11 GMT -5
Fairly obvious that I only got a copy of the first half. ;D Will try and do more on these early families over the next couple of days. Unfortunately Friday is cut short because I have to work again on what is normally a night off.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 20, 2007 7:31:14 GMT -5
Cornish Terrier: in posting the details of the will I earlier was working off my own abstract rather than directly off my copy of the will. However I have since done a new transcription and hence will make the following observations here:
Your Point 1: Agreed, suggests a St Ives origin for William.
Your Point 2: I don't see this as being at all compelling -- "Joan" was a pretty common name, both William and Nicholas's wives were so named, and they each had daughters so named, so this name obviously ran in the family. More evidence is therefore required.
Your Point 3. According to my notes, "Thomas Berriman of St. Ives' will of 15/4/1622 is extremely hard to read, but I could make out references to daughters Cheston, Lucretia and Elizabeth, all unmarried and possibly under 21, daughter Margaret, sons Nicholas and Arthur, and wife Catherine. The estate was worth ?34.2.6. John Berriman, presumably the John Beryman son of Nicholas, was a witness to this will." Again perhaps the original (of which I also have a copy) will need a re-examination to see if further clues emerge. The problem here though is that we do not actually know how this Thomas fits into the family. Both William and Nicholas had a son named Thomas. The 1622 Thomas could therefore be either of these -- or perhaps neither. The fact that 1622 Thomas had a son named Nicholas does not actually prove that this Thomas was a son of the older Nicholas. That name may have either run in Thomas' wife's family, of which we presently know nothing, or else occurred in earlier generations of the Berriman family prior to the Nicholas of the 1616 will. Since Thomas had 6 children living in 1622, it may also be that chronologically he fits better as being Thomas son of William and not Thomas son of Nicholas. Personally I do not think the evidence strongly points in either direction. More information is therefore required, if any can be found.
Of the top of my head I cannot myself recall seeing any case where the word "godson" was used to mean "grandson". Coincidental cases of some godsons that also turn out to be grandsons absolutely do not indicate that the one word was synonymous with the other. Furthermore, I don't see the known ambiguity around the word "cousin " as being at all comparable to this situation -- who says "godson" was an ambiguous term? Godchildren did not need to be grandhcildren, and hence the term cannot be interpreted in that way.
In this case, unlike another that we have discussed, this particular godson obviously was also a relation from his surname, but I think that if he was William's grandson then he would have been called that. To me the wording is indicative of him being another kind of relation, especially when you then look at what both the will says, and what it does not say, about Thomas' father Nicholas.
William's failure to name the eldest son (but who incidentally was bequeathed two lambs, a brasen crock and one ....[gap in will at this point]... a year old) strikes me as odd, but I do not think that we can say with any authority that it was Nicholas. Where Nicholas is mentioned by name in the will, as he is more than once, his relationship to the testator is not stated. The godson Thomas is called Nicholas' son, but other than that Nicholas is described only as being both a witness and an overseer. Also, Nicholas in his own will mentions sons named John, Arthur and Thomas, but no son named William.
Furthermore, there are no explicit references to any grandchildren in William's will. That could be significant on chronological grounds, suggesting that William died a little younger than some may have thought.
An overseer was an arm's length figure who was there to ensure that the executor (in this case, William's wife Joan) distributed the legacies in accordance with the will. This was therefore a role for someone who was not an interested party with inheritance rights in the estate in question. That I think pretty much rules out any son of the testator as being a candidate for that role.
I would therefore propose Nicholas as a brother, and on chronological grounds probably a younger brother, of William, with Thomas as William's godson nephew.
John Beryman, the other overseer, on reflection cannot be Nicholas' son of that name as the latter is generally considered to be the John Berriman who wed in 1611, and hence would most likely have been too young to undertake such a role in 1600. That by default suggests that the John mentioned in William's will was of the older generation, and hence perhaps a further brother to William. The Berriman wills also show that the John or Johns of 1616 and 1622 could sign his/their name(s)*, the John of 1600 merely made a mark.
*The signatures, while at first glance certainly not identical, are on closer examination similar in many respects and for that reason I am not prepared to suggest that the John of 1616 is a different man to that of 1622.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 20, 2007 14:43:49 GMT -5
Thankyou once again for another 'beautiful serve'. I like the way you think and, although you may disagree, I do think in a very similar manner. (On most occasions anyway Please do not misinterpret the way I talk about the terms 'cosen' and 'godson' or, for that matter, benificiaries named without a relationship being given. (Especially when they share the same surname as the Testator.) I am merely trying to point out that there are other options to explain some of these terms as they were used at varying times in the past. 'kinsman' is another classic. Will try and read through this again in the next couple of days when I have a little more time and energy. Just done an extra shift and now have to do my normal week at work.
|
|