Genealogy Chat

Can anybody help with the following query. To follow shortly. thanks Bo

In the will of a relative (Richard Pigott, vicar) who died childless in 1885 he leaves £500 to his nephew Peter Pigott. However I can find no birth for a Peter Pigott - the nearest I can find is a male Pigott Marylebone 4Q 1860. I can find a Peter Pigott on the 1871, aged 11 at school in Hove, and aged 21 in the 1881 census, medicine student in London, but never with his parents. I can't find him after that either. By process of elimination I have narrowed Peter down to only one of Richard's other brothers - Charles Stainsby Pigott - his other brothers all had named children in 1860. However and here is the problem: Charles only married in the 1Q of 1861. He married by licence in St Dunstan's West in the city of London. The witnesses are not family. He lives in Fleet street and is a farmer?? How likely is it that a vicar would leave a sizeable sum of money to an illegimate child? I haven't as yet brought the unnamed birth cert. I check the births for the maiden name of Charles' wife - (Mary) Goodyear but nothing. Am I jumping to conclusions here - what information would the unnamed certificate give me? I'm feeling confused. Bo

The unnamed certificate should at least give you the mother's name and place of birth. Did the vicar have any unmarried sisters? The child could be hers, or I suppose the child could also have been the vicar's and was brought up by the mother or someone else and the vicar wanted to provide for him. Not sure really. Have you looked for a baptism in the parish where the family lived as they may have taken a while to decide on a name, but most babies were baptised in those days. Kath. x

Thanks Kath The vicar had lots of unmarried sisters - that would be a skeleton! I think I'll just have to buy the certificate. It is complicated by the fact that the possible father died in 1868 and there are simply hundreds of Mary Pigotts and on the marriage certificate under age it simply says full which doesn't really help with her age or dob. Bo

Not many illegitimate children in those days would have been able to afford to study medicine, so he must have had someone looking after his financial needs. Kath. x

There is a small risk... Sometimes people adopted a surname in order to be eligible for an inheritance. (I think Jane Austen's brother did that?) If the Revd Pigott was expecting to die without an heir to carry on his name, he may have made the bequest conditional upon the name change. Was he married but childless? Could it be his wife's nephew? (Trying out the various people who could be called ''nephew'', here...) Christine

Christine, That's a good point - but unfortunately if it's the case, then I don't think Bo will find it easy to find out what this 'Peter Pigott's' real name is. Kath. x

Thanks both Richard's wife had masses of siblings (in fact 3 of the sisters married 3 Pigott brothers: Francis, eldest brother, married Frances, Shreeve (2nd bro) married Eliza and Richard (4th bro) married Emma) but his will definitely says my nephew Peter Pigott - with no clause about altering his name. My gt gt gt grandfather - the above sons father - did exactly that and added two names to his surname just so that he could inherit a large sum of money. It was meant to be forever but only lasted for him and his eldest son Francis and was then quietly dropped! Good thing to really as Pigott-Stainsby-Conant is a bit of a mouthful! I hope the birth cert gives me the info - otherwise it is back to the think tank! Bo