Order of Children in 1695 Will

[farmeroman]

Is/was there any convention regarding the order of children in wills?

I have a 1695 will of Ann Greenhill from Chrishall, Essex, the widow of Francis Greenhill, where her four living children are named (Seth, William, Matthew and Elizabeth), and I wondered if that may signify their order of birth, and if so, if males were listed first in order of birth and then females in their own order of birth?

Seth did receive the largest bequest, which makes me think he was probably the eldest (male).

Any ideas?

I have not found the baptism records of any of the children, or the marriage record of Francis and Ann.

[AllanUK]

Of the 10 or so wills that I have from the very early 1700s, bequests to children were always in birth order, i.e. eldest child first, youngest last.

[farmeroman]

Of the 10 or so wills that I have from the very early 1700s, bequests to children were always in birth order, i.e. eldest child first, youngest last.

Cheers. Were males and females mixed (so in birth order) too?

[Jebber]

Of the 10 or so wills that I have from the very early 1700s, bequests to children were always in birth order, i.e. eldest child first, youngest last.

Cheers. Were males and females mixed (so in birth order) too?

I have the opposite experience. Sometimes in age order, often in single children first,  then married children, sometimes mixed and sometimes children of  a second marriage named before those of the first marriage. You have to be open minded and look at all options.

[AllanUK]

Of the 10 or so wills that I have from the very early 1700s, bequests to children were always in birth order, i.e. eldest child first, youngest last.

Cheers. Were males and females mixed (so in birth order) too?

Just had a quick look -- of the 9 wills that I have, 6 showed children in birth order regardless of their gender, the other three showed the sons first in birth order followed by the daughters in birth order. The 9 wills were: 5 from Lincolnshire and 4 from County Durham

[farmeroman]

Of the 10 or so wills that I have from the very early 1700s, bequests to children were always in birth order, i.e. eldest child first, youngest last.

Cheers. Were males and females mixed (so in birth order) too?

I have the opposite experience. Sometimes in age order, often in single children first,  then married children, sometimes mixed and sometimes children of  a second marriage named before those of the first marriage. You have to be open minded and look at all options.

I thought someone would soon come along and throw a spanner in the works. Oh well, no harm done.

[farmeroman]

Of the 10 or so wills that I have from the very early 1700s, bequests to children were always in birth order, i.e. eldest child first, youngest last.

Cheers. Were males and females mixed (so in birth order) too?

I have the opposite experience. Sometimes in age order, often in single children first,  then married children, sometimes mixed and sometimes children of  a second marriage named before those of the first marriage. You have to be open minded and look at all options.

One of his sons (the one who was left the farm, so probably the eldest) had four children over a seven year period (girl, boy, boy, girl) and then died. Annoyingly, his will just said "and to my four children I leave...".

[Little Nell]

I am lucky enough to have found a large number of family wills, from many southern counties through to Lancashire and points in between.  Generally speaking, the children were named in the order of birth, males first, then females. 

Sometimes if they were not named in birth order, it might describe them as 'eldest,'  'youngest,' 'second,' or even 'third.'  There have been occasions when the eldest son is not named because he received his inheritance in the lifetime of his father.

Nell