Pauline
LostCousins Megastar
One of my Wiltshire ancestors left a will, which was proved in 1641 and written a year or so earlier.
Two sons are mentioned in the will, Roger and Richard. I know that Roger was baptised in December 1620, but there seems to be no surviving record of Richard's baptism or the parents' marriage. However, it appears from the will, and an earlier lease, that Roger may have been the elder son.
What puzzles me, though, is the will says that Roger is to receive his inheritance when he is 24 whereas Richard is to get his at age 21. Why the difference? And is there anything significant about the (probable) older son not getting his inheritance until he is 24?
Two sons are mentioned in the will, Roger and Richard. I know that Roger was baptised in December 1620, but there seems to be no surviving record of Richard's baptism or the parents' marriage. However, it appears from the will, and an earlier lease, that Roger may have been the elder son.
What puzzles me, though, is the will says that Roger is to receive his inheritance when he is 24 whereas Richard is to get his at age 21. Why the difference? And is there anything significant about the (probable) older son not getting his inheritance until he is 24?
