Frear Gibson Question Regarding Wills And Children

[olympus593]

Hi everyone. I posted this in my previous thread but it all went quiet.

A UK will from 1940 for my relative Frear Gibson. I ordered it via the Gov site.

James Alan Reekie (b 1904 – d 1974) was the sole executor and beneficiary of Frear Gibson's estate. Frear states in his will ‘ I give and bequeath all my estate..... to my son James Alan Reekie of 16 Park Road East, Ashington.’ The will was written in 1938 and Frear died in 1940.

I had always assumed he was Frear's step son as Frear married James Alan Reekie mother, Mary Simpson Reekie, née Culley (b 1871 – d 1938) in 1915. It was both Frear's and Mary's second marriage.

Do you think in the will Frear's son is listed as James Alan Reekie then that must be the case as it is a legal document? I am not sure if they would list step son etc. I also do not know if he adopted him. Please advise as a new topic for me.

[KGarrad]

A person in the UK can call themselves anything they like.
Just as long as it isn't for purposes of fraud or deception.

Furthermore formal adoption didn't happen in England & Wales until 1936 (IIRC).
So the child probably wasn't adopted - the usual legal necessity these days.

[Kiltaglassan]

I posted this in my previous thread but it all went quiet.

A UK will from 1940 for my relative Frear Gibson. I ordered it via the Gov site.

Here's the related thread for information.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=868601.9

[MonicaL]

The ultimate test would be a DNA link to the Gibson side but in the absence of that, James Alan Reekie's birth registration would be as you would expect, connected to Mary's first marriage:

REEKIE, JAMES  ALAN  - Mother's maiden name CULLEY     
GRO Reference: 1904  S Quarter in NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE  Volume 10B  Page 39

From the other post linked above, Mary's first husband James didn't die until 1907?

Monica

[olympus593]

Thanks! Frear did have a only child, Arthur Gibson. Arthur was alive in 1940 when his father died which is why I found it a bit of a surprise that Frear would leave his estate to someone he called his son who we believe is not his son, James Alan Reekie.

That's correct James Reekie died in 1907.

Frear Gibson knew James Alan Reekie from roughly 1915 to his death in 1940. Frear was living with James Alan Reekie when he died in 1940.

[suey]

Thanks! Frear did have a only child, Arthur Gibson. Arthur was alive in 1940 when his father died which is why I found it a bit of a surprise that Frear would leave his estate to someone he called his son who we believe is not his son, James Alan Reekie.

That's correct James Reekie died in 1907.

Frear Gibson knew James Alan Reekie from roughly 1915 to his death in 1940. Frear was living with James Alan Reekie when he died in 1940.

Are you looking for reasons as to why the estate was left to a ‘son’ who was not blood related.

What do you know about the relationship between Frear and his son Arthur ?  You could make all sorts of guesses, had they fallen out? Was Arthur already financially secure and not in need.
You say Frear was living with James, had James been actively looking after him ?  Either health wise or financially or was it the other way around.  You may never know the reason unless there are stories within the wider family. 
Arthur obviously looked upon James as his ‘son’ he would have been 11 at the time of the 1915 marriage, mother Mary having been a widow since 1907.

[mazi]

Suey is right, you may never know for certain, but what interests me is the lack of other children in Frear Gibsons marriage, and the seemingly childless Reekes marriage.

Could a 47 year old have had a dalliance with a married woman, and then married her when he was free to do so?

I think it’s possible.


Mike

[olympus593]

I was really hoping for information on the use of the word ‘son’ in Frear’s will as to the best of my knowledge James Alan Reekie is not Frear’s biological son. I have no history with wills so did not know if my experience was common, or if most people would expect to see 'step son' listed for the relationship. I am sure there must have been some explanation with the solicitors as they do not share a surname.

I know that Arthur Gibson (b 1883) is Frear’s only child from his previous marriage. Arthur Gibson (b 1883) is my great-great-grandfather.

Anything else would be speculation as Suey sais and as we all know all sorts goes on in families 

[shanreagh]

Presumably if the son rather than the stepson had any concerns with the will he could have challenged it.

This happened not so long ago in family terms, is there no-one who might be able to enlighten you as to a reason why this happened?
 
I do know that in some families the step children can come to mean a great deal to their step fathers or mothers so much so that they would class them as sons or daughters.