'The elder' and 'The younger' - meaning/interpretation

[RedBrigden]

My interest is in the various Brigden families of Hadlow, Kent, which started with Thomas Brigden, possibly married Elizabeth Wells 1659/60 Brenchley, Kent, with children born Hadlow, Kent from 1660/61 onward.

Will of Jane Stone, Widow, of Mereworth, Kent written Aug 1650, proved 1659 to husband, Thomas Brigden (who she married in Sep 1650), given in the will as 'my loving friend' Thomas Brigden the younger of Mereworth, Kent.

Will of Thomas Brigdine the elder of Meroth, Kent, written 14 Feb 1653/54, proved 20 Aug 1654.  Leaves bequests to numerous named kinsmen and kinswomen, he names kinsman Thomas Brigden of Hadlow, Kent as his main beneficiary and executor.


Margaret

I am new to the site and only just came across your post now. I have been trying to decipher the same wills (Jane Stone/Thomas Brigdine) and automatically assumed "the younger" meant the son, which has considerably thrown off my line of research as I had the Thomas who married Jane Stone descending from William Brigden and Elizabeth Baldwin. Have you managed to figure out a connection between the two Thomas Brigdens?

[sugarfizzle]

RedBrigden, Thanks for your reply.

I haven't made any definite conclusions yet, I have always found the Brigden family difficult to work out!  My version is considerably different to the version which appears in many online trees.  I have found no evidence for William Brigden and Elizabeth Baldwin as parents of Thomas Brigden the younger, though it may be correct.  Open as always to comments, corrections and additions. 

Thomas Brigden/Brigdine the elder
Left bequests to 'Kinsman Thomas Brigden (? the younger) and his son Thomas, not yet 21'.
No definite conclusion made as to the relationship between the two Thomas Brigdens - probably not father and son as I think the relationship would have been noted in the will.  Possibly uncle and nephew (his nieces by his sister are given as kinswomen 'Sister Jane Co[k]er and her three daughters, kinswomen Margaret, Susan, Elizabeth half a crown apiece').

Thomas Brigden the younger
Jane Drewrye was born Jun 1611 Mereworth, Kent, Thomas Stone and Jane Drewrye married 30 Nov 1635, Mereworth, Kent
Children baptised in Mereworth, Kent between 1638 - 1647 - John, Susanna, George and Mary.

Thomas Brigden (born Est 1629 from marriage record, may have been older) married Jane Stone 12 Sep 1650, Mereworth, Kent.  Jane's will was written August 1650, before the marriage, where she leaves bequest to loving friend Thomas Brigden the younger of Mereworth, who was executor of her will in 1659 - clearly a prenuptual will ensuring her children with Thomas Stone inherited.
Jane Drewrye/Stone/Brigden died 1659, Mereworth, Kent.

Thomas Brigden widower married Elizabeth Wells widow, 1 Mar 1659/60, Brenchley, Kent, potentially raised family in Hadlow, Kent from 1661 onward.
 
Thomas Brigden, not yet 21 in 1654, was possibly son of Thomas Brigden and Jane Drewrye, born between 1650 - 1654, Mereworth or Hadlow, potentially raised family in Hadlow between 1681 - 1691, including the Benjamin Brigden who married Ann Mansur.

Margaret

[pinefamily]

I had similar problems with my Dowdeswell's. Some of the early wills, while helpful in providing names, were confusing in terminology. Elder, younger, senior, and junior are all terms that can mean a range of things, as can "cousin" and kinsman/kinswoman. In the parish register, in the space of about 10 years, there were burials for John Dowdeswell, the elder, the younger, and junior! And I'm still looking for that "kinsman" Richard.
Only by using all available documents will you be able to sort out the relationships. Try looking for other family wills as well, sisters, cousins, etc. Also property documents could prove helpful.

[ThrelfallYorky]

The only situation I've met in my researches where apparently siblings had the same name as each other, which really did seem to me to be a silly idea on the part of the parents, turned out to be the result of two second marriages, and the siblings were actually step-siblings when I got it all sorted. Mind you, with the father/stepfather having the same name - and his father still alive with the same name again, what a confusion there must've been at family events!
In use, in my family, they ended up referring to "Old Tom", "young Tom", "Thomas", "Tommy" and "Tam" informally, but I suppose that wouldn't work for legal documents!

[LizzieL]

And Thomas the younger could become Thomas the elder when his father / uncle (the original Thomas the elder ) died, if he subsequently had a son he called Thomas (who would then become the new Thomas the younger).
So it's all relative.

[ThrelfallYorky]

Ouch!

[sugarfizzle]

Exactly, Lizzie!!

[venelow]

I've seen people mentioned in a Cause Paper (1600s) transcript as the Elder and the Younger.

One was 28 and the other 26.

Venelow

[bugbear]

  I have a couple of instances where there were two brothers of the same name and both survived to adulthood.

Yikes. I have always used the birth of a later child of the same name as an earlier child
to mean that the earlier child has died, and record (and cite) my DB as such.

I conventionally put "birth of same named sibling" as a comment against the deduced death event.

 

 BugBear