Order of beneficiaries in a will

[Bowkerfan]

I am trying to sort out a family that lived in Suffolk in the 16th cent. Thomas Munning, twice married, with about 10 children died in 1557. In a published pedigree the birth order of his children is: Humphrey, Margaret, Christian, Elizabeth, Bridget, George, Nicholas (died as an infant) Thomas and then lastly Robert. In his will Thomas makes his bequeaths in the following order:
Robert, Thomas, George, Humphrey, and then the girls in their correct birth order. Robert gets the lion share of the land and by the time Humphrey is named he gets a single farm, and a warning not to trouble Thomas' wife about it.
My question is: how unusual would it be for the youngest son to get the most and the oldest the least. In later American will's the oldest always gets the biggest share. My thought is that the birth order is not correct and that Humphrey is the youngest son, not the oldest.
Can anyone help me with this?
Jeanie

[Nicolina]

normally it is up to the person's personal choice. Maybe Robert was his father's favourite , maybe he was more rsponsible, who's to say.

[Pam Downes]

Hi Jeanie,
Just because something is published it doesn't mean it's accurate, so first you need to question the published pedigree. i.e. who published it? And do they quote any sources?
Depending on when the children were born parish registers (which began in 1538) may not exist for the baptisms of the children, and even burial registers may not be of any help unless they give an age at death. Which may be unlikely back in those days.

It could also be that Humphrey had already inherited land or money from (possibly) a grandparent, and so therefore wasn't in 'need' so much as Robert or Thomas. Have you found any wills for Robert, Thomas, or Humphrey which might give further clues?

Pam

[Peter Goodey]

A few terms for you to look up...

Gavelkind

Borough-English

Also it wasn't particularly unusual for a son to receive his share during the father's lifetime for example to set him up with a livelihood to allow him to marry. The subsequent will might then look a bit odd.

[Wilkes_ml]

I agree with Pam & Peter that the chances are the eldest son had already received his share by either having land/property given to him or set up in business prior to the decease of the father. I have found this to be the case in the majority of my families who left a will in the 17th & 18th century. Some wills do not even name the eldest son, which can be rather confusing. I also find that married daughters tend to be named first, followed by unmarried daughters, but this isn't always the case.

[Guy Etchells]

The date of the death of Robert Munning is significant 1557, if he had died prior to the Statute of Wills 1540 then his first born son would have inherited.
The Statute of Wills change matters and allowed a landowner to bequeath up to two-thirds of his property, by testament, to whoever he wished regardless of primogeniture.

That statute also allowed him to bequeath estate real & personal to his daughters.
Possible why the clause warning not to trouble Thomas' wife about the farm was included.
Cheers
Guy

[Bowkerfan]

thank you everyone for your thought on this query. I am going to start looking for sibling wills to see if they shed any light on this.
jeanie