{"id":1090,"date":"2012-04-19T00:37:24","date_gmt":"2012-04-18T23:37:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/teresa-goatham.me.uk\/genealogy\/?page_id=1090"},"modified":"2015-12-12T21:51:03","modified_gmt":"2015-12-12T21:51:03","slug":"susanna-efford-c1758-1842","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/teresa-goatham.me.uk\/genealogy\/wills-about\/devon\/issell\/susanna-efford-c1758-1842\/","title":{"rendered":"The will of Susanna Efford n\u00e9e Issell (c.1758 – 1842)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Susanna<\/a> is a 6 x gt aunt, the sister of my 5 x gt grandfather John Issell (b. c. 1753).<\/p>\n

She outlived her husband who, unlike many men at that time, had left her everything, rather than leaving it in trust to her for her lifetime and specifying what should happen after her death. But they often did this to make sure their children inherited, and that the money did not go outside of the family because their widow had remarried and her new husband taken control. This did not apply in Thomas and Susanna’s case as they seem to have had no children, certainly none who survived them. Consequently most of Susanna’s bequests were to her relations and those of her husband, so her will is useful in confirming relationships and in a couple of cases providing evidence where I wasn’t sure which of two similarly aged people of the same name were involved in a marriage.<\/p>\n

Although both nephews and nieces and other relations were left bequests it seems to have been the female relations who were favoured with the larger amounts; showing a preference to other females is common in women’s wills.<\/p>\n

But one of Susanna’s nephews was left more than the others. To her other nephews specified by name Susanna left £5, but to one named after her husband she left £10, and also her silver watch. The money was still less, though, than she left to her named nieces – they received fifteen or nineteen guineas. Thomas Efford Issell was baptised in May 1798, over 6 years after the marriage of Susanna to Thomas Efford. If they didn’t have any children by then it may well have been seen as probable that they would not be blessed with children, and so a nephew named after him have been desirable. Whether to comfort Susanna and Thomas, or in the hope of being left a good inheritance is not clear.<\/p>\n

Without knowing the size of the estate that Susanna left it is not certain, but it seems that those who may have received most might have been the children of her sister Betty Stone and her brother-in-law William Efford, who were to receive the residue, carved up between them. (I’ll see if I can find out the size of her estate from the death duties register)<\/p>\n

In the transcription of the will which follows I have tried to stick to spelling and most punctuation as in the copy transcribed, but I have added paragraphs and a list, as well as bold text, to aid reading \/ studying the will. Comments not in the original are in square brackets – [ ]<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
This is the last Will and Testament of me Susanna Efford of the City of Bristol widow of Thomas Efford late of the same City Mariner deceased
\nI appoint my friends Richard Thomas Williams Surgeon And Daniel Brown Gentleman both of the said City of Bristol Executors of this my will And I give and bequeath to them all my estate and effects and request them as soon as possible after my decease to convert into money all such parts thereof as shall not then consist of money except my silver watch hereinafter specifically bequeathed and out of the money arising from such conversion and the money which I shall leave at my decease (after discharging my funeral expences the expences of proving this my will and my just debts) I direct my said Executors to pay the following legacies (viz)\n