DRINKWATER - previous thread (General)

by amaska , Saturday, September 27, 2014, 20:23 (3704 days ago) @ MPGriffiths

I am not sure why I have not seen this before. Thank you for posting the information and for linking back.

I apologise if I am repeating myself!

In another part of the country a married woman ancestor of mine died young, and did not leave a will as at that time married women did not leave wills. The husband of the dead woman applied for administration many years after his wife's death. This seemed very strange until I read the will of her maternal grandfather. Just before the husband applied for administration his widowed mother-in-law died. She had inherited land from her father, bequeathed to her and her heirs separately from her husband. So when she died her surviving children and grandchildren shared the land. It seems the husband had to apply for administration to access the share due to his children - or so the Lancashire Record Office suggest.

I am wondering if there also exists some sort of explanation for why the two daughters of Thomas Drinkwater applied for administration of his estate apparently 25 years after his death. I agree I may be wrong in thinking he is the one buried in Taynton 27 Feb 1739 (resident in Huntley) but I do know this one was not one of the Huntley Drinkwaters because I have read wills that link together this different branch. It is possible that my Thomas Drinkwater died in 1763/64, that the application for administration left out the date of death, and that his burial was not recorded. He would have to have been over 80 when he died - not impossible. Perhaps he did die elsewhere as you suggest - though the letter granting the administration is signed by the Rector of Taynton at the time.

I expect I will never know.

It would have been useful to read the will of the earlier Thomas Drinkwater of Taynton, dated 1667, but though this must once have existed (as it is listed in the National Archives) Gloucester Record Office have told me it has always been missing. Ancestry just copied the filmed images and did not check the images against the indexes.

Thanks again for your help.