£1000 left in a will

[wilcoxon]

Wow....what a pile to have back then ....But...did the money come down the generations to your line?....
Carol

NO     I come from the illegitimate son of Thomas Wilcoxon born 1824, also named Thomas,  luckily his father was named on the baptisms along with his abode, so I have been able to trace him. My Thomas became a leadminer, but eventually became a publican, his son Joseph went on to  be a well respected man in the village and did a lot of good work for the community.

Thomas Snr later married and had another legitimate  son also named Thomas  . 

However one of the earlier ones went to London in the 18th c , Arthur Wilcoxon and became very rich. He was a glass and furniture merchant. Lots to found about him on he web.
Was there still a connection down there I wonder.

Another more recent famous relation from the later London family is Henry Wilcoxon the actor.
His brother Robert Owen Wilcoxon was a sort of racing driver, lots about him to be found too.

Fell free to google them, I`m sure you will find plenty.

[jim1]

It's impossible to calculate the true worth because it depends on what you are measuring it against.
For example labour & property were much cheaper than today but food & clothing more expensive.
If the average annual wage was £20 pa. compared to today at £26000 pa. then £1000 = £26000 X 50 = £1.3m.

[supermoussi]

ps. As far as I know 1461 was before the slave trade began.

Yes, your safe to say that about the European/W.Indies/America Slave trade which ran from the 1500s to the 1800s, although slaving itself has been going on for longtimes. Even if you weren't directly involved in it anyone with money is likely to have made investments in businesses, ships and plantations that were. It was a big part of the "stockmarket" of the day. Get rich quick!

[LizzieW]

I don't think they "got rich quick" they seem to have been a wealthy family since at least mid 1300s.  Unfortunately, although I shared the line with the rich ones for many centuries by the time we got to the 1800s, my line were ag labs and one died in the workhouse.  Oh well, c'est la vie. 

[smudwhisk]

I don't think they "got rich quick" they seem to have been a wealthy family since at least mid 1300s.  Unfortunately, although I shared the line with the rich ones for many centuries by the time we got to the 1800s, my line were ag labs and one died in the workhouse.  Oh well, c'est la vie. 

I've a similar line which from about the mid 1600s ended up being fisherman for quite a few generations.  Main issue is the line of descent from the wealthy family is through several female ancestors who married into less wealthy families.

The irony of it is that my mother's elder brother's wife is actually my father's 15th cousin (and I have the paper trail to prove it).   The last shared ancestor being born in the late 1400s and while mine, as mentioned, fell on hard times in the mid 1600s, ending up eventually in the East End of London, hers were wealthy right through to the late 1700s when her direct ancestor was the illegitimate son of a randy vicar with money (one of seven children the aforementioned vicar had with his mistress while still married. ).  Mind you her ancestor's family connections came in rather handy when he was convicted of horse stealing.  Anyone else would probably have been transported, but he just got 12 months in prison and the newspaper reports mention he was connected to the wealthy family of the same name.  We may have been poor but all were born in wedlock, unlike my Aunt's infamous family who had numerous illegitimate children, with at least three vicars fathering children with other women while married.