Any experts on Georgian Royal Decrees on here?

[gemmanoon]

I have a digital copy of an order from George III to his Montgomeryshire magistrates to enquire after the mental health and financial holdings of one of my ancestors, as well as the letter they sent back detailing their resulting investigation three months later. The letter is signed with the copper-plate of the name Thurlow, which may well be the 1st Baron Thurlow, and was written by a scribe from the looks of it and not signed directly by the monarch.

Can anyone tell me why on earth King George would be interested in whether or not my rather unimportant ancestor, at best a minor member of the gentry, was a lunatic? I've transcribed the documents and gone through them several times, but other than the fact that my ancestor was apparently not able to fully take care of himself for at least twenty years before the command was issued, it's honestly not clear what is going on here. They don't seem to have consulted with any of his relatives whether by blood or marriage but rather a jury of his peers which I assume was the custom? 

Can anyone help me understand what's going on here? There is very little in way of context in my possession right now, and I'm genuinely flummoxed. What circumstances might have led to this, do you think?

And yes, I'm amused that George III, of all monarchs, was interested in whether my ancestor was a lunatic.

[Ruskie]

Might it help you post the letter on here so anyone who knows about such things can give a more informed opinion?

I admit to not having a clue, but might it relate to your ancestor being a tenant of some sort? They may be trying to work out if he is still capable of doing the work (whatever it may be eg farming) which may explain why they asking his peers rather than his family.  (independent or “unbiased” opinions)

Do you know much about this ancestor’s life, especially around this time? His occupation? Address? Was he a “lunatic”? 

[gemmanoon]

Thanks Ruskie - I've added the start of the transcipt of the letter below - please excuse incorrect legal terms, and it basically goes on along the same lines and repeats "manors tenements goods and chattels" pretty much every single line.

As you can see from the text, though, no reason is given for the Inquisition, and while the Inquisition itself says yes, he's a lunatic and his nearest male relative is a nephew, it doesn't detail anything about who might have begun this whole thing.

"GEORGE the third by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the ffaith to his beloved William China Hart and William Prissith Esquires, William Pugh, Henry Ffoulkes and John Thomas Gentleman Greeting, KNOW YE that we have assesses twice or more of ye to inquire by the Oath of good and lawful men of Our County of Montgomery as well within liberties as without by whom the truth of the matter may be better known whether Richard Whittington late of Aberhavesp Hall in the parish of Aberhavesp in the County of Montgomery but now of Brynderwen in the parish of LLanwnog in the said County Gentleman is a Lunatic or enjoyed lucid intervals so that he is not sufficient for the Government of himself his manors messuages lands tenements goods chattels..."


The family were considered gentlemen, and both owned and leased a range of properties in the area - I'm still tracking all the farms. This fellow, Richard, isn't my direct line, but rather a brother. I know the family lived at Aberhafesp Hall for a while so I'm sure it's the right Richard, and the house (still standing) indicated a relatively wealthy background at the time.

[Ruskie]

“so that he is not sufficient for the Government of himself his manors messuages lands tenements goods chattels..."

Once again, I have no idea what I am talking about  but it sounds like he may not have been managing the lands well enough, hence the enquiry, (which is understandable I think). 

I will leave this for someone who can give you some more informed suggestions. 

[Bookbox]

Perhaps your document is from the commissions and inquisitions of lunacy in C 211 ... ?
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10566755

Before the mid 1850s, any relative or close associate of someone who was considered mentally incapable of attending to their own business affairs could petition for a lunacy inquiry. If the person was officially determined to be a lunatic, their personal care and their property would be protected by the Crown.

Such lunacy petitions were sometimes submitted by heirs, who were nervous that they might otherwise be deprived of a potential inheritance, if (for example) the 'lunatic' were to give away his property, or to be duped into doing so by someone else.

The standard TNA research guide may be helpful, especially section 9 ...
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/mental-health/#9-chancery-records-determining-lunacy-and-administering-the-property-of-lunatics-and-idiots

[gemmanoon]

Ah, so it's possible/probable that his sister in law, his heir's mother, was the one to request an inquiry?

That would make sense, so thank you! I was just surprised as the original petition is not in the file, only the command and the response.

Once again the knowledge on here is amazing :-)

[Bookbox]

Ah, so it's possible/probable that his sister in law, his heir's mother, was the one to request an inquiry?

It's certainly possible. Others who might have petitioned would be a solicitor, an executor of a will, or any substantial creditor who was keen to maximise the chances of getting his money back.

[gemmanoon]

Thanks, Bookbox. The thrust of the royal document is to discover whether or not he has "alienated" any property in his portfolio, and to find out what he holds and what it is worth. His brother seems to have died only a year or so earlier, so although I appreciate this is all speculation, it makes sense to me that his sister in law is out to protect the interests of her son and the only Whittington heir on this line.

I appreciate the information, thank you!

[Ruskie]

This has been an enlightening topic. Thanks Gemma and Bookbox.