All, Have a question about meaning of "in tail" in the context of a 1504 will of Hugh Revell of Derbyshire (see link, which goes to full description of will), and about two persons named therein.

https://calmview.derbyshire.gov.uk/calmview/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=D184%2f4%2f1&pos=1

*Generally, does "in tail" refer to a trust meant to keep wealth concentrated in/with a line of heirs into the future, with each individual restricted as to what he/she can do with lands, for example?

In the will are cited the testator's two legitimate sons and an illegitimate son and daughter. A Cuthbert Langton and wife Jone are also cited as directed to receive -- "to the use of," and in tail -- some copyhold land of the testator's.

*Does the inclusion of Cuthbert and/or Jone in an "in tail" scenario mean they are likely relatives of the testator's? Is it even possible that Cuthbert's wife Jone is the testator's illegitimate daughter of the same name, mentioned farther down in the
document (and that the marriage has been contracted but not yet fulfilled at time of will, as she is a minor)? Or am I missing an important point about what "in tail" does and doesn't mean, and Cuthbert and Jone are legatees for some reason other than
blood relationship?

Excerpt:

"When Roland is 24 he is to take the issues, rents and profits of lands and tenements in Nottingham and in..., except lands and tenements in ...late in the holding of [names], with a tenement in...in the holding of [name], which lands so excepted are to
be held by the feoffees to the use of Cuthbert Langton and Jone his wife in tail with remainder to the testator's heirs, the feoffees making an estate of the premises, except those excepted, with remainder to Tristram and the testator's heirs. Should he
die before surrendering his copyhold lands, his son Tristram is to surrender them to the testator's feoffees to the use of Roland, Cuthbert Langton and Jone his wife in tail."

Farther down:

"...To Raff Greenall for the rule and guiding of Jone the testator's bastard daughter begotten by Jone Tansley until she is 16, 5 marks for her finding and keeping, and she is then to be married at the sight of Raff and the testator's executors for which
marriage she is to have 100 marks if she is married and guided by Raff and the executors, and if she will not, the 100 marks is to be divided between the testator's other children..."

Many thanks for insights.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 8:42:57 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

*Generally, does "in tail" refer to a trust meant to keep wealth concentrated in/with a line of heirs into the future, with each individual restricted as to what he/she can do with lands, for example?

Holding in tail encompassed a whole lot, depending on the specific circumstance - there is a whole section on it here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=AmYyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA162#v=onepage&q&f=false

In the will are cited the testator's two legitimate sons and an illegitimate son and daughter. A Cuthbert Langton and wife Jone are also cited as directed to receive -- "to the use of," and in tail -- some copyhold land of the testator's.

*Does the inclusion of Cuthbert and/or Jone in an "in tail" scenario mean they are likely relatives of the testator's?

I would say this provision neither makes it more nor less likely. It is the mention of Joan at all, rather than just namig Cuthbert, that suggests the connection - genealogical or social - involved her.

Is it even possible that Cuthbert's wife Jone is the testator's illegitimate daughter of the same name, mentioned farther down in the document (and that the marriage has been contracted but not yet fulfilled at time of will, as she is a minor)?

I guess it is theoretically possible, but from the excerpts I would say that it doesn't read like that. Basically, Ralph is being charged to be her guardian, which would have been odd had she already been married - it should have referred to Cuthbert
here, or at least referred to 'Jone, aforesaid' or some other indication she had already been referred to. Such indicators were not always included, but Joan was probably the most common female name at the time, so it is unsafe to assume any two people
with that given name are the same. (For that matter, it is theoretically possible for Cuthbert's wife to have been Jone Tansley, the mistress, being taken care of, but again we are lacking any direct indication this was the case.)

Or am I missing an important point about what "in tail" does and doesn't mean, and Cuthbert and Jone are legatees for some reason other than blood relationship?

I don't think this will supports a hypothesis of relationship without further evidence.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 10:48:10 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 8:42:57 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

*Generally, does "in tail" refer to a trust meant to keep wealth concentrated in/with a line of heirs into the future, with each individual restricted as to what he/she can do with lands, for example?

Holding in tail encompassed a whole lot, depending on the specific circumstance - there is a whole section on it here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=AmYyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA162#v=onepage&q&f=false

In the will are cited the testator's two legitimate sons and an illegitimate son and daughter. A Cuthbert Langton and wife Jone are also cited as directed to receive -- "to the use of," and in tail -- some copyhold land of the testator's.

*Does the inclusion of Cuthbert and/or Jone in an "in tail" scenario mean they are likely relatives of the testator's?

I would say this provision neither makes it more nor less likely. It is the mention of Joan at all, rather than just namig Cuthbert, that suggests the connection - genealogical or social - involved her.

Is it even possible that Cuthbert's wife Jone is the testator's illegitimate daughter of the same name, mentioned farther down in the document (and that the marriage has been contracted but not yet fulfilled at time of will, as she is a minor)?

I guess it is theoretically possible, but from the excerpts I would say that it doesn't read like that. Basically, Ralph is being charged to be her guardian, which would have been odd had she already been married - it should have referred to Cuthbert

here, or at least referred to 'Jone, aforesaid' or some other indication she had already been referred to. Such indicators were not always included, but Joan was probably the most common female name at the time, so it is unsafe to assume any two people
with that given name are the same. (For that matter, it is theoretically possible for Cuthbert's wife to have been Jone Tansley, the mistress, being taken care of, but again we are lacking any direct indication this was the case.)

Or am I missing an important point about what "in tail" does and doesn't mean, and Cuthbert and Jone are legatees for some reason other than blood relationship?

I don't think this will supports a hypothesis of relationship without further evidence.

taf

taf, Thank you, as always, for all points and insight. I must be making a bit of progress (!); one of your points occurred to me ["It is the mention of Joan at all, rather than just namig Cuthbert, that suggests the connection - genealogical or social -
involved her."].

I may not have wondered about a family relationship here had I not also found some other Revell/Langton/FitzRandolph connections -- an ancient deed in which Christopher FitzRandolph and wife Joan Langton (Cuthbert's daughter) grant land to a Roland
Revell (very possibly the son Roland cited in Hugh's will); a suit Cuthbert brought against Randall Revell, likely the bastard son mentioned in Hugh's will; another suit brought by Cuthbert against Christopher Fitz and Roland Revell; and a suit Cuthbert
brought against Christopher and wife Joan (his daughter) concerning, in part, I think, lands the pair had granted to Roland Revell. Together, could these things suggest a connection (especially since both Roland and his half-brother Randall are involved
at various times)?

Question related to land grant to Roland: I assume that "grant" means "give," and not "sell?" The couple granted the lands to Roland reserving the right to buy them back if/when any of the couple's children reached majority:

"Indenture, dated 20 September, 10 Henry VIII, witnessing that Christopher Fitzrandolf of Codnore and Jane his wife, daughter and one of the heirs of Cuthbert Langtone of Langton Hall, have granted to Roland Revell of Maunsfeld, all their lands, etc. in
Hukenall under Hucthwet alias Dirti Hukenall, near Sutton in Aschefeld, with liberty to buy them back for 8l. 6s. 8d. on the coming of age of any heir of their bodies. English. Endorsed, Inter Revell et Fitzrandall for lond in Mancefeld."

I don't yet know the many conditions under and purposes for which people granted land, and whether the buyback provision could signal that the lands may have belonged to an ancestor of the childrens'...possibly Hugh Revell? That maybe these are lands
brought to Cuthbert's marriage by his wife, who could have been Hugh's bastard daughter/Roland's half-sister? (But as you pointed out, if this were the case, would Cuthbert likely have served as his contracted wife's guardian, rather than someone else?)

In any case, is it significant here that Christopher's wife Jane is identified specifically in the indenture as an heir of Cuthbert? Does this reference likely indicate that granted lands came from her family and not Christopher's?








--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)