Will Throws a Spanner in the Works!

[Pennie]

Working back up my WASTIE family tree, I have my direct ancestor Richard WASTY who was baptised in Eynsham in 1668, s. Richard.  Other known siblings also baptised at Eynsham were Ann (1670), Thomas (1673), Helen (1676) and Hannah (1679).

Because of the unusual surname - and because the dates fitted nicely - I had always thought that Richard's parents were Richard WASTIE/WACE and Joane GREENE who married at Stonesfield in 1666.  This Richard died in 1681 in Eynsham and I've recently acquired his will, which is where the problems start ...

The will (dated 1677) refers to his three daughters - Elizabeth, Ann and Ellin (Helen?) - and two sons - Richard and Thomas.  All the children were under 21 years of age.  I have no record of Elizabeth.

The will also refers (a couple of times) to his "loving wife" Margery, so it would seem that he didn't marry a Joane after all!  I can find no record of a marriage to a Margery, and no record of a burial for a Joane or Margery.

Where do I go from here?

Any information or suggestions would be most welcome.

Pennie

NB  There are many variants of this surname - WASTIE, WASTY, WASE, WASTE, WACE etc.

[lizdb]

Perhaps the key is to try and find a christening for the (presuambly) eldest child Elizabeth in a neighbouring parish and see if that leads to a marriage to a Margery.

The Will clearly fits the family you are looking at, it is just the marriage that doesnt - well the date and place does but just the brides name that is the "spanner"

Do any of the chrs of Richard, Ann, Thomas, Helen and Hannah give a mothers name?

Or maybe Joane was just known as Margery for some reason! An unusual name for the era.
Or maybe Richard did marry Joane as you found, but she dies and he remarried to a Margery before 1677.

[bucksboy]

Hi Pennie,

Not wishing to chuck in more spanners.

There is a marriage for Richard Wace to Margaret Million - @ Stanton Harcourt - 3 Nov 1656.

Stanton Harcourt is only a couple of miles away from Eynsham.

Is it possible the Will you have acquired, is for him.

Steve.

[Pennie]

Thanks to you both for your replies.

Unfortunately, we're back into the era when mother's names weren't recorded at baptisms - so no help there!

I can't find any record of Elizabeth's baptism.

Richard must have married Margery before 1677, which means that Hannah must have been her daughter (and possibly some of the older children).  Again, no burial records for Joan or Margery have been found.  (Seems not unusual - I have at least four or five marriages in the 1600s and early 1700s where there's no record of the wife's burial.)

I had spotted the WACE/MILLION marriage, but it seems too early.  Even if Elizabeth was the eldest and born c1665 this would still leave almost ten years between the marriage and birth of first chid.  Additionally, there are no baptisms for children of Richard WACE in Stanton Harcourt, but a Margaret WACE was buried there in 1709 and a Richard WASE in 1708.  If this is the same couple, then it can't be "my" Richard as he died in 1681.

Any other ideas???


Pennie

[bucksboy]

I've had Wills that the daughters & sons, were actually in-laws. So therefore, could Elizabeth be just that, a daughter-in-law.

Because the other Richard and Margaret married at Stanton Harcourt, is does not mean  they had children there.  I have had relatives born in one parish, but baptised in another.  Were the burials in Stanton Harcourt, for adults or children. That is, the children of this marriage.

If you are absolutely sure you have the Will for 'your' Richard, then I really don't have any more suggestions.  Other than forget the Will, and go with what you actually know for definite.

Also, how sure are you about Wace/Wastie/Wasty etc.  connections.

I am not wishing to doubt your research at all, as you have obviously gone to great lengths to assess and confirm it.

It appears it is only the Will, that has thrown the 'spanners' in the works.

Good luck, and I hope you can resolve the 'spanners'.


Steve.

[Pennie]

Hi Steve ...

Many thanks for your comments.

As Richard's eldest son (according to his will) was only nine when the will was drawn up in 1677, I don't think there can have been any daughters-in-law.

Normally, as the WACE/MILLION marriage does not seem to have produced any children baptised in the parish of marriage, then I would take this to be a good sign that they moved on, but those two burials do seem to fit (and would seem to be adults, as children are noted as such).

I guess I shall just have to enter the details into my family tree, but adding lots of notes to cover all eventualities!

Pennie

[Oxfordshire FHS]

Dear Pennie

So the question arising from your last post is what precisely did the term "daughter-in-law" mean back in 1677 ? I think that it refers to what we would now call a "step-daughter".

Any different thoughts in the light of that ?

Best wishes.

Paul Gaskell
Publicity Officer
Oxfordshire Family History Society
Website : www.ofhs.org.uk

[Pennie]

Hi Paul ...

Thanks for your reply.

Richard's will definitely refers to "my three daughters Elizabeth, Ann and Ellin".  (Son Thomas was mentioned next and lastly "eldest son Richard").

Your suggestion of Elizabeth as his step-daughter is a definite possibility - the daughter of Joane (nee GREENE), although it would have had to be pretty quick as there were only two years between the marriage and Richard Jnr.'s arrival, or perhaps an even earlier marriage - before his marriage to the "mysterious" Margery.

I've put a post on the Beginners board regarding absence of burial records for wives (Joan and Margery relate to one of the direct ancestors).  You may like to have a quick look at it here:

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,526479.0.html

I've not managed to read all of the 1677 will, but will be sending to the OFHS's wills database in the next day or two.

Pennie

[Lesanne]

Hi Pennie,

Have you got 2 Richards here.. possibly cousins even... 
Try to follow each one individually.

Lesanne.