help with legal terms and some surnames in poor handwriting

[whitehound]

Apologies if this query turns up twice - I'm having trouble getting it to post.

I'm deciphering a family tree for the Raes of Keel House, Kerry, drawn up around 1920.  Unfortunately, although the lettering is nice and clear visually, the writer had one of those handwritings which contain a lot of long horizontal squiggles.  I've managed to develop a feel for his or her writing and have deciphered nearly all of it, but the purpose of the tree is to show not bloodlines but the transfer of estates and mortgages, and there are some legal terms in here which I don't recognise, and can't decipher from first principles because of the bad handwriting.

Incidentally d. sometimes stands for "died" and sometimes for "dated" depending on the context.

To make life easier I have prepared an alphabet which shows samples of capital letters in this person's handwriting since, for example, their E looks like a G and their I looks like a backwards C.

Here is my first query.  This description says:

Robert Rae
eld. son in 1781  of Newcastle, Co Limerick  One of the [what? - looks like "lives" but does that make legal sense?] in deed dated 13 Nov. 1781   b. c. 1738

This Robert Rae presents an interesting puzzle.  He is listed at far left of a line of siblings, described as "Robert Rae eldest son in 1781", and next to the right of him we find "Edward Rae eldest son in 1777".  My first thought was that they'd been listed out of order, that Edward was the first-born and that he died between 1777 and 1781 - but that doesn't work because Edward's entry clearly states that he died in 1786.

I can think of three possibilities:

1)  Robert was first-born but he was born (or at least conceived) before his parents' marriage and wasn't accepted as a legitimate heir until some time between 1777 and 1781.

2)  Robert was first-born but he disappeared for some reason and as at 1777 he was presumed dead, but he then returned prior to 1781.

3)  Robert and Edward were the same person, who for some reason was calling himself (or being called by the family lawyer) Edward in 1777 and Robert in 1781.

Have I missed any possibilities?

[GR2]

heirs ?

[whitehound]

That would certainly make legal sense - thanks.  Here's a word definitely ending in "rs" for comparison - it *could* be a match.

[whitehound]

OK, let's assume that's "heirs" - thanks.  Here's the next one.  It says:

Anne Langford
dau. of Robert Langford of Keele and Anne Meredyth of Anna [probably modern Annagh], Co Kerry  in 1816 grantor of deed d. 24 March 1786.  [What?] Will proved 1832

As well as not being able to read the abbreviation before "Will", I'm not sure if it's saying that in 1816 she was the grantor of a deed dated 1786, or that she was living in Annagh in 1816 and had been the grantor of a deed 30 years beforehand.  This person didn't believe in punctuation.

[arthurk]

In the first extract I think you were right first time with "lives". Property leases were often granted for three lives (ie the lifetime of three named individuals), such as husband, wife and eldest son. It was obviously in the tenants' interests to choose the people who were expected to live longest, though in view of child mortality, very young children wouldn't usually be named. I've also seen examples where one of the lives was the Prince of Wales, or someone of similar status.

As for the second extract, I wonder if the word before Will is "Prer", for Prerogative (plus a few stray pen marks)? Where someone left property in more than one diocese, probate had to be granted by the Prerogative Court, and for Ireland this would be Armagh. However, if there were assets in England as well, it could possibly refer to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.

Irish wills are quite tricky to find, and many of the originals were destroyed in 1922. However, a number of abstracts and indexes survive, so you might be lucky in finding a bit more information.

Arthur

[Treetotal]

Is it "will proved"?
Carol

[whitehound]

Ah, well, "lives" would make sense then - there are three people people mentioned in respect of this deed of 13 Nov 1781 and they are indeed this bloke and his parents, with the father listed as grantee.  Thanks.

The strange thing then is that Robert's brother Edward (or it may be the same chap with two names) and his wife Anne Langford are then listed as grant*ors* of a deed dated 24 March 1786.

As for the will, yes to Treetotal it says "will proved", it's the curious little abbreviation before it which I can't make out.  I'm not sure about "Prer" because that looks like a 'd' on the end, and I'm not sure whether the full stop after it indicates an abreviation, or a word which is a separate thing from what follows.

At the same time, "Prerogative" would make legal sense, because Anne's late husband Edward Rae had held lands in Kerry, Galway and Waterford which must surely have crossed diocese boundaries.

Here's another one relating to the same couple but from a different document.  If anybody has volume 3 of the small 4-volume set of Joseph Foster's "The Royal Lineage of our Noble and Gentle Families", or volume 1 of the extended 3-volume set, it's from page 446 on the Day family in Kerry, but all I have is a hand-written transcript of the one page.  What I want to know is on line 2 and 3 -

"Robert Langford ? of Keel" and "of Richard Meredith the ? of Dick's Grove"

Dicksgrove is a "townland", a small parcel of land such as might house a farm, near Listowel in Co Kerry.

[Treetotal]

Robert Langford Esq?...(Esquire)  Same after Meredith.
Carol

[arthurk]

As for the will, yes to Treetotal it says "will proved", it's the curious little abbreviation before it which I can't make out.  I'm not sure about "Prer" because that looks like a 'd' on the end, and I'm not sure whether the full stop after it indicates an abreviation, or a word which is a separate thing from what follows.

What I think I can see is a capital P with a curved slip of the pen immediately after it. Then "rer." What looks like a "d" is, I think, the bottom part of the "f" in the line above - compare the "f" in "of" at the start of the two preceding lines.

"Robert Langford ? of Keel" and "of Richard Meredith the ? of Dick's Grove"

I agree with "Esq" for both of these.

Arthur