The Brown Tree » George DARLING (1614-1693)

Persoonlijke gegevens George DARLING 

• Hij is geboren op 16 juli 1614 in Lasswade, Midlothian, Scotland.Bronnen 2, 3, 7
• (Arrival) op 11 november 1650 in Boston/Lynn, Massachusetts: On November 11, 1650 George Darling and some 150 other Scotsmen sailed across the Atlantic ocean aboard the ship Unity to the new Colonies. They arrived in Boston in December of 1650..
• (Battle of Dunbar) op 3 september 1650 in Scotland, United Kingdom: George was captured by Oliver Cromwell at the Battle of Dunbar.
• (Darling) : George Darling is my 9th G-Grandfather.Wooster County, Massachusetts Memoirs,.
• Hij is overleden op 13 september 1693 in Salem, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, hij was toen 79 jaar oud.Bronnen 4, 8

  or 9th October

• Boedelverdeling naar Berkshire, Massachusetts, USA.Bron 8
• Een kind van George DARLING en Isabel MUCKLE
• Een kind van George? DARLING en DARLING

Gezin van George DARLING

(1) Hij heeft/had een relatie met Katherine NK.

(2) Hij is getrouwd met Katherine More.

Zij zijn getrouwd op 31 maart 1657 te Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United States, hij was toen 42 jaar oud.

Kind(eren):

1. John Darling  1657-1719 
2. 2 Hannah DARLING  1658-????
3. 3 James Darling  1660-1724
4. Thomas DARLING  1663-1716 
5. Sarah Darling  1665-1744
6. 5Daniel Darling  1667-1727 
7. George DARLING  1667-1730
8. Joseph DARLING  1667-1690
9. Margaret DARLING  1668-1693
10. Rebecca Darling  1669-????
11. 9Hannah Darling  1670-1724
12. Benjamin Darling  1672-1709
13. 11Henry Darling  1676-1719
14. Sarah Darling  1679-1703

Notities over George DARLING

Thank you for sharing this interesting material. It does indeed seem puzzling that George would have felt that the elimination of the will would help James, when James was designated in the will as the ultimate recipient of George's real estate. I had supposed that John was perhaps the oldest of the sons, but this makes me rethink that. I'm inclined on the basis of this information to place James as the oldest. If James was the eldest son, then under primogeniture (then in effect in England, of course) James would have been entitled to the whole of the real estate even George had left no will. In Massachusetts, by contrast, the real estate of an intestate decedent was to be divided among all children as tenants in common, with the eldest son receiving a double portion as dictated by Deuteronymy. I recognize that under the assumption that George Darling was acquainted with the laws of intestate succssion in Massachusetts, his comment would make no sense. However, I surmise that George may very well have been ignorant on the subject (no one to my knowledge has claimed that he was a legal scholar), and that he made his comment about burning the will on the assumption that without it, James would get all the real estate. (At the same time, we all believe that George was a Scot, and might not have had much occasion to become steeped in the English concept of primogeniture. I will admit freely that I have no knowledge as to Scottish law on the subject.) If James was not the eldest son, then George's comments as reported make no sense under the law of either English or Massachusetts jurisdiction. 1 UID

Thank you for sharing this interesting material. It does indeed seem puzzling that George would have felt that the elimination of the will would help James, when James was designated in the will as the ultimate recipient of George's real estate. I had supposed that John was perhaps the oldest of the sons, but this makes me rethink that. I'm inclined on the basis of this information to place James as the oldest. If James was the eldest son, then under primogeniture (then in effect in England, of course) James would have been entitled to the whole of the real estate even George had left no will. In Massachusetts, by contrast, the real estate of an intestate decedent was to be divided among all children as tenants in common, with the eldest son receiving a double portion as dictated by Deuteronymy. I recognize that under the assumption that George Darling was acquainted with the laws of intestate succssion in Massachusetts, his comment would make no sense. However, I surmise that George may very well have been ignorant on the subject (no one to my knowledge has claimed that he was a legal scholar), and that he made his comment about burning the will on the assumption that without it, James would get all the real estate. (At the same time, we all believe that George was a Scot, and might not have had much occasion to become steeped in the English concept of primogeniture. I will admit freely that I have no knowledge as to Scottish law on the subject.) If James was not the eldest son, then George's comments as reported make no sense George Darling's will dated April 12, 1693 Salem, Essex Co., MA. He names 5 sons and 2 daughters and wife Katherine. I'm sure most of you here already know that, but just wanted to let anyone new know that I do have a copy of this will if you wanted any info from it. Its quite hard to read as its done in ~negative~ copy, not ~positive~ like a photocopy, and the black background makes it quite difficult to read some of the fine handwriting. He names son James and John, Daniel, Thomas, Benjamin and Henry. They each received 40 shillings a piece. His daughter Sarah recvd. 40 shillings after his death and his daughter Margrett(sic) recvd. 30 shillings after his death. His wife Katherine and son James were named Exectors of the will and "all his houseing and all his lands" were to go to her and then on to his son James. He had quite a falling out with his son John who was married so many times or Not married and had children with women who he did not marry and then left these children or child(Elizabeth) un-supported. Anyway, on Oct. 9, 1673, my ancestor Ingram MOODIE who was a good friend of George Darling's, signed an Affadavit saying that George had mentioned after he made this will that he wanted to burn it. It read something like this: "The elder Ingraham Moody, an old friend of George's from the Civil Wars in England (they fought in the Battle of Dunbar in Scotland in Sept. 1650 only to be captured by Cromwell's men and taken to England before being shipped to America as indentured servants), now aged 74, made an affadavit on Oct. 9, 1693 that George Darling had told him some time after the final will was signed that he was not contented with it and would be contented if it were burned". (Essex Co., MA Probate record #7168). On this same day, Mrs. Katherine Darling made a similar affadavit and adds, "I did conclude said will was burned. I asked my husband how James should be the better for it (that is, if it had been destroyed), then he replied, "he should be the better for it."" In 1684 George Darling apparently took his son John to court because he abandoned his daughter and then remarried. The judgement was for the defendant John. George kept strong feelings about this over the years and in 1693 when he became ill, he began to have second thoughts about the terms of his will. The final result of his will which I mentioned above, was that his 2nd son James received the bulk of his estate and his son John, only 40 shillings. (all from the Essex Co. Probate records) ***************************************

Heeft u aanvullingen, correcties of vragen met betrekking tot George DARLING?
De auteur van deze publicatie hoort het graag van u!

Tijdbalk George DARLING

Klik op de namen voor meer informatie. Gebruikte symbolen:  grootouders    ouders    broers/zussen    kinderen