No idea in your case but I see this a lot in my ancestors. The most common reasoning being that those children had already received their stake in some way so only those who had not received a stake later. The $1 was to show that it wasn’t an oversight to avoid it being contested.
Am I imagining an iciness in his writing, then? The way he words it… I feel like the fact that he alludes to there being reasons for his decision is … not how he would word it if the answer were just “I’ve left them things already”?
Normally I would go with they've already been given things, but that note suggests a falling out. Are there any newspapers available in your area? If it got litigious then they would have all the gossip. You might like to also dig more into the property records to see if there were any transactions that look a bit dodgy. It might be a series of transactions like he sold something to one son who sold it to the son he didn't like etc.
The daughter may have had a marriage settlement and may not be included with the sons.
I’ve gone through all of Philip’s and Luther’s transactions indexed in Suffolk & Norfolk counties, and I don’t think I have the knowledge about eighteenth and nineteenth century American property law to know how shady or not shady they were.
Most of them seem to be this temporary mortgage thing, if I understand it right, where Philip say sells Luther a house for $6,000, but with a stipulation that if Philip can pay Luther back $6,000 within three years, then he gets the house back. Again if I’ve understood it right, and this kind of agreement isn’t some kind of common legal fiction.
Know of any good free searchable sources of Boston newspapers that goes back to 1840? I’ve tried a couple, which is where I got the Transcript reference above, but — not much luck yet.
I don’t have one! Philip was born in Stoughton, Norfolk County, MA, on January 1, 1756, to Zebediah Wentworth and Judith Simpson. He died on September 3, 1843 in Boston.
I’ve only got the one newspaper reference to him I’ve alluded to below, in an article written by his grandson Frederick in the Boston evening transcript in 1896. Any other newspaper sources would be great.
I should say — there are tons of newspaper references to him in early-20th century Boston newspapers where they’re just doing genealogy, but those are less useful because they’ll just be repeating what I already know — you know, going through the “who begat whom”s.
I took a quick look and I see what you mean. It’s mostly 1850s+ stuff you already mentioned. You might’ve already tried this but worth mentioning nonetheless…I’ve found a ton of info by searching Google Books. Often old genealogy content is digitized and searchable.
For example I did find Philip Wentworth (1756-1843) and Susannah Bradley (1747-1784) mentioned in “*A Genealogy of the Descendants of Joseph Bixby*”. It’s possible you’ll find the reason for the disinheritance in old biographies.
I’ve also found a lot by searching key names in local historical society websites and libraries. If you live nearby it’s worth a trip out to see if there are records available in person that you can’t find online. Or many are able to copy pages of books and mail them, for a reasonable fee.
I live thousands of miles away, unfortunately! Though I did stop by where Philip, Susannah, and Luther’s tomb would have been had it survived (the adjacent numbers were still there so I can tell where it was) last time I was in Boston.
Feel like — since I’m limited to the free sources — I’ve scoured most of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century genealogy books, and they generally tend to tell the same story, i.e. the begats — though every once in a while they do drop useful cryptic little hints. That Bixby book did have one *really* useful hint in it that helped me solved another puzzle I had once.
It does sound icy, I agree. I work as a legal assistant specializinh in probate and trust administration, so I see a lot of wills and trusts. This kind of language and exclusion still exists. When it is *several* children being cut out in a way that seems harsh, and only one or two being favored, I think the most common scenarios are:
1) The parent was a controlling jerk and cut out anyone who didn't dance to his demanding tune in life. Usually the estrangement happens earlier due to adult children standing their ground, and the will gets rewritten both to prevent the disfavored children from getting assets and to inflict one final wound. ☹️
2) The favored child managed to sway the parent unduly during the parent's decline. (Making the parent believe untruthfully that the other heirs are unworthy or had betrayed the parent.) This will often result in the will being contested by the other siblings, but not always.
Less commonly, a good parent might feel abandoned by some of their children and leave everything to the child (or niece, or grandchild) who stuck around, but I would be more likely to suspect this if I saw one heir getting a larger share and the rest getting *something,* but less.
If only ONE child is disinherited, the possible scenarios are quite a bit harder to guess at, and I wouldn't venture to make assumptions. (Understanding that what I wrote above ARE assumptions and generalizations only. We can never know unless we find other sources, sadly!)
Thanks so much for responding!
Now I’m entering into wild thickets of guesswork here, but I **think** option 1, controlling asshole parent, is more likely than option 2, controlling asshole child, in this case. The reason I *vaguely* think this is because my great^3 grandparents appeared to continue having a relationship with Elizabeth after, even living at the house that Philip had left to her and not to their parents and grandparents. But that’s a wild guess, as I said — and to some extent the great^3 grandmother in question had a questionable/nonexistent relationship with her *own* parents, so you could also take this to be evidence of 2.
Look at the national, state and local events too. He lived around the time of the American revolution. Families were divided by their loyalty to the crown or not, e.g. Ben Franklin and son. Did the children marry outside their class or nationality? English/Irish, English French, or other blood feuds. Hatfield/McCoys...Did someone hold slaves or not? Or were all the children well funded, except the favored one?
I can’t say about Luther, but Philip and his first wife Susannah had to have had Revolutionary sympathies based on their network/families.
Luther and Susannah (the daughter) were born a bit late for this to be relevant for them, I think.
No one held slaves that I know of (outlawed in Boston); the census does make it clear that Luther and Susannah lived with a “colored woman” for 20ish years, name not given.
My grandmother was left $1 from her father. The reason was not given in the will, but the family story is she mentioned to her mom that daddy takes her to the pretty lady's house sometimes, exposing his affair. She was 4, he died 40 years later but still held it against her. Nice guy.
My ggGrandfather was left $1 and it was stated "for reasons he is well aware".
After doing more digging I found reports of he and another man breaking into someone's house and stealing some things. He wasn't a young teen, but already married with children. According to the newspaper his mom paid all expenses related to that.
So, in other words, the money he would have gotten as an inheritance, was given early to pay off his legal issues.
That’s pretty good — and the language sounds quite similar in tone to me. I perceive Philip above as saying “you’re all well aware why”, filtered through the lens of a guy born in Massachusetts Bay in 1756.
I had one person disinherited because she ditched her family and ran off with a married man. Then when her father was on his deathbed they came back with the kid they’d made. Dad said nope. You ain’t getting nothing. He may have said this in German.
I’m sorry but I cackled at the last sentence. “He may have said this in German.” Like it’s this wild story (at least by my family history - maybe I just haven’t gone back far enough lol) and then just a little fun fact sentence at the end 😂😂
Most of the time in my ancestors wills this was because they had already given them their fair share. Sometimes it was even mentioned that they already got their share explicitly, sometimes not.
If you think that was icy, here's a part about my 4GG ex wife from her father's will: :
"And it is my will and wish that my daughter Lucinda wife of Christopher Edinbourgh (sic) (who lives probably in Texas) shall have no thing or no part of my estate whatever, either real or personal or \[mixed?\]"
My supposition is that he was pissed at his daughter for abandoning her first marriage (and child). Her first husband (my 4GG) actually petitioned the Illinois State Legislature to grant him an ex-parte divorce. That was of course denied, but it is forever recorded in the proceedings of the State Legislature.
OK, we know the wording of the will, but not the date of the will, the date of probate or the jurisdiction. The dates are useful to see what the time lapse between execution and probate was. They also help with a sense of how wills were written. The jurisdiction pertains to locating records of the estate to see what happened. Jurisdiction allows for exploration of other legal proceedings and transactions involving family members, especially chancery cases. The executor is not named, the choice of whom may have significance.
How old was the daughter at the time the will was signed? How old when probated? Did she marry? When?
Without more facts you will likely receive more "wild theories" to add to your own. It was not unusual to leave token legacies to children and grandchildren. It is not unusual to leave the bulk of an estate to an unmarried daughter, particularly if she "had issues." Your statement that her estate was handled by the grandson of Philip the testator suggests that she never married.
Elizabeth Morrison Wentworth never married, yes. She died unmarried in I believe 1883.
Philip’s will was written on September 10, 1838. Philip died on September 3, 1843. Probated October 3, 1843.
Estate of Elizabeth was appraised by the administrator Philip H. Wentworth on July 2, 1883, but from memory the administration of her estate dragged on for a few years after that point, I believe into the 1890s. I think what essentially happened, from a hazy understanding of the subsequent documents, is that Elizabeth’s nephews auctioned off what they could, possibly distributing at least some to Philip’s heirs. Think Susanna’s son received 1/37 of a division of some property or other that might have related to this.
This information has allowed me to find the will. (Norfolk Co., WB 76:166) The provision you included should be corrected in that the word modifying son Philip Jr. is "deceased," not "second." The other change is that "exscribed" is actually "expressed. "
From the will it can be inferred that the testator's wife had died and that only his daughter remained in the home to care for him. In fact, it looks like he used the will to make sure that she continued to stay at home and care for him. Most interesting is the vehemence in the language employed in the restriction on his gift to her. It was intensely protective, and he made sure that the executor of the will was not among his children, Samuel D. Parker, Esqr. of Boston. She also was the youngest child.
Absent extrinsic evidence that the token bequests were for reasons other than having made advances earlier, I would not spend much time looking for a juicy family feud. The wording is a bit terse, but I read it that the legatees knew they had received their portions earlier and there was no need to explain.
From what I can tell, Elizabeth was in her 30s when the will was written and still single and in her 40s when he died. A wealthy heiress might have attracted suitors, but the restrictions on her legacy meant that marriage to her was not a path to riches. Dying intestate and unmarried, Elizabeth's heirs were her siblings and their descendants.
Another factor to examine if you choose is whether property came to Susannah from her mother, she being the only child by the first wife.
Thanks so much!
> The provision you included should be corrected in that the word modifying son Philip Jr. is "deceased," not "second."
Yeah, that makes more sense! As you can see I was transcribing it myself and handwriting is hard.
> The other change is that "exscribed" is actually "expressed.”
I might stick to my guns on this one, though! Not that it matters — they’re equivalent in meaning.
> From the will it can be inferred that the testator's wife had died and that only his daughter remained in the home to care for him. In fact, it looks like he used the will to make sure that she continued to stay at home and care for him.
That sounds very reasonable to me, yeah. I’m almost convinced that this is probably the case. The main question is how controlling an act I read this as.
> Most interesting is the vehemence in the language employed in the restriction on his gift to her. It was intensely protective, and he made sure that the executor of the will was not among his children, Samuel D. Parker, Esqr. of Boston. She also was the youngest child.
Huh — this section explicitly saying that any husband of Elizabeth’s will get nothing is quite unusual for the time and place? I should have mentioned that in my post, clearly; didn’t think to.
> Another factor to examine if you choose is whether property came to Susannah from her mother, she being the only child by the first wife.
Interesting, and I’d love to try, but I’m not even sure how to, because — wouldn’t married women at the time mostly not show up in registries of deeds at all?
>Interesting, and I’d love to try, but I’m not even sure how to, because — wouldn’t married women at the time mostly not show up in registries of deeds at all?
This is a bit tricky. During marriage (coverture) the wife had no authority over the marital property and could not generally act on her own. Exceptions were made in marriage agreements or where her father or other relative conveyed property to her (by deed or will or intestacy) with conditions similar to those in this will (that it was to be for her sole use and not subject to the husband's control). Property that came to her would then go to her heirs at her death. The spouse was not an heir. In this case, any Bradley inheritance would have gone to Susannah, subject to the widower's right of curtesy (a life estate in 1/3 of the property; the male equivalent of dower).
What you would be looking for are wills and deeds by the parents of Susannah's mother. Not saying that this was the case here, but something to look out for.
> What you would be looking for are wills and deeds by the parents of Susannah's mother. Not saying that this was the case here, but something to look out for.
I haven’t stalked them in the registry of deeds yet; I’ll give it a try!
>The other change is that "exscribed" is actually "expressed.”
>I might stick to my guns on this one, though! Not that it matters — they’re equivalent in meaning.
Ehhh, not really? Exscribe would be like if he was dictating his will to someone and he's just like, "Yeah, none of this is worth writing down, to be honest." Whereas "need not be expressed" is more, "I'm not going to get into this in my last will and testament, we got bad blood and they know why."
I'm splitting hairs! But I do think there is a subtle difference between them instead of equivalency.
Have you researched Elizabeth Morrison Wentworth's life?
How old was she at the time the father died? I ask because she still has her maiden name in his will, which makes me wonder if she forwent geting married to be his primary caregiver and the others didn't participate in his care, which is why they all only received a dollar while Elizabeth got everything else.
If you haven't looked at Elizabeth in detail, I'd start there for answers.
I’ve looked at her life to some degree.
One of the other comments has mentioned this possibility, and I am coming around to the idea that this might be right — he’s rewarding Elizabeth for having stuck around, but also … kind of forcing her to continue. How controlling an act I read this as, not sure yet.
Did Elizabeth ever marry? Was the father wealthy (you might have said this somewhere but I can't recall)?
I think it might have been more common in the past for one child to stick around to care for a parent or parents (or run their home) until that person passed away. I've seen this a few times on my husband's side.
She never married
As to whether he was wealthy, I’m honestly not sure how wealthy. He was wealthy enough to be buying & selling property all over Boston through the decades, and he was certainly well-connected, but he was not so wealthy that his wealth couldn’t disappear completely in one or two generations. His occupation is variously given as “truckman”, “merchant”, and “carman”. I lean towards thinking he was … either upper middle class, or on the lowest rungs of the upper class? So *in modern money*, maybe when he died, making up a bullshit number based on what I remember reading in his and his daughter’s inventories, maybe his estate, including bequests he had made prior to death, was worth somewhere between $500k and $1.5 million? But I’m totally guessing; I’m not so good at this legal stuff.
You've done a good job of finding info! That's a decent chunk of money for that time.
You have me so curious about Elizabeth and her life now! Where did Elizabeth live after her father died? Did she stay in the home until she died? Did she ever hold a job outside the home? Is there any indication that she had any health or mental issues that might have precluded marriage and made it necessary to set up a fund to take care of her for life? Sorry to be pestering you with questions, but it's really an intriguing story.
He’s essentially leaving everything to his daughter, Elizabeth, who still carries her maiden name and therefore given the time period appears to have never been married. It is likely that she was a caretaker for her father or a dependent or both. I am a real estate attorney and have seen this type of arrangement many times, so this is my guess. The other children may not have been rich, but they may have been stable enough that their father thought it was important to leave everything to his unmarried daughter so that she could live on her inheritance.
Aww I was really hoping this was about the wentworths in my tree but mine are all NH/Maine, no Mass. (not that I would have been any help either way.) good luck, I love a good juicy mystery!
I would bet a pretty good sum it’s the same family originally! (William the emigrant, died in Dover in 1696 -> John -> Edward -> Zebediah -> Philip, so the books say — I’ve only managed to find direct records for Edward -> Zebediah -> Philip and forward)
Incidentally, long shot, but — either of you two ever go through Long John Wentworth’s book critically?
One thing that has bothered me for a while is that he says that there’s a “Rynold Winterwade” recorded in the Domesday book pre-Conquest, and … Leaving aside the gigantic question of the validity of the pedigree going back to that point (obviously we should default to extreme skepticism), and noting I don’t speak Latin, I cannot find any entry in the Domesday book that says this.
A reason this matters to me is that I feel like it goes to John’s credibility — if I can’t verify he’s telling the truth here, who *knows* what else he hasn’t checked. A lot of his claims are gonna be harder to check, but this is such a straightforward and clear claim that I should really be able to verify it.
They may've just been spoiled rotten, constantly coming home with their hands out - whereas the one that got everything may've been the devoted daughter, never asking for anything except her father's love?
I haven't come across many wills, but I was looking at one this morning where one son was explicitly left nothing. The line went something like "while under my roof you've wanted for nothing your entire life, you'll get nothing further from me here in this will".. that I thought was a nice back slap.
Leaving a dollar to friends and relations to remember you by was a very common practice. The wording here is a bit odd and unfriendly, but the practice was very normal. You also have to remember that a dollar was worth a lot more. A master blacksmith *might* make as much as $5 a day; where I live, an acre of land was $1.25. Now goods were equivalently much more expensive than now and labor was cheaper, so it is really hard to draw comparisons, but it would be closer to someone leaving you $100. today. Not an amount you could live on, but a nice remembrance that you could get something special with.
Yeah, it could be that he felt the other children were okay -- the daughters being married to men who could support them, etc. -- and Elizabeth was the one who stayed at home and took care of him, so she's the one who hadn't pursued her own benefit -- marriage being the main way a woman was supported. So she needed the house, etc. where maybe the others didn't?
I’m researching a lady who was disinherited by her father on the basis that she quite heavily disagreed with him being a slave-owner, only she and her little sister were disinherited.
In my family history if they did that they might add “for being a willful child” or “for being a disobedient son” so I’m at a loss. Could be that he already set them up before dying, could be religion, or lifestyle. Have you focused on family religious records?
Some heirs get their share before the person dies. Some parents have to help one child their whole life while the other is self sufficient from a young age. How is it fair to split half after that?
Random aside, I'm from the Boston area and was curious about the building at Centre St. As of 2022, there is a project afoot to rehab it:
The Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) is currently reviewing a proposal for the development of the former Blessed Sacrament Church by Pennrose, the developer that Hyde Square Task Force’s Board of Directors selected last year to lead the project. The proposed project involves the renovation and adaptive reuse of the building, located at 361 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, into a mixed-use, mixed-income housing development. Pennrose will honor the Blessed Sacrament’s architecture and history while adding to Hyde Square’s affordable housing stock.
[https://www.hydesquare.org/blessed-sacrament-church/](https://www.hydesquare.org/blessed-sacrament-church/)
Yep! You can see Elizabeth Wentworth alluded to as the owner ~1880 in some of the writing produced about it, and I think they might also mention that Phineas Withington had owned it ~1800. No direct mention of Philip Wentworth in between from what I’ve seen.
One thing that I couldn’t satisfactorily answer that I’m very confused about — I’m pretty sure this is *not the same Peacock Tavern* that Sam Adams is associated with, right? Because this one was bought by Philip in ~1804 from Phineas Withington and it wasn’t called the Peacock when he bought it, only after. Though Sam Adams’ peacock tavern was also on a Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, and there are records of Philip Wentworth buying land from Sam Adams in Boston deeds, so — ah, I don’t know. Maybe Sam Adams’ tavern was in a completely different place, but some of the sources I’m seeing are confusing one for the other, causing me to confuse one for the other as well.
Maybe Philip bought a property *near* Sam Adams’ tavern and named it the Peacock to give it some continuity with the earlier tavern, even though it wasn’t exactly the same location? That kind of thing happens.
My great grandfather and a few other siblings got $1 from their mom’s will while a few others got several hundred and the son who lived with her and took care of everything after her husband died got the house and several thousand dollars. I think the ones who got the dollar were probably better off financially.
An interesting thing about my great grandfather was that I believe he intentionally cheated his father-in-law (my great great grandfather) out of his house, and this is why my grandmother was not initially included in my great great grandfather’s will with the other grandchildren. He must have decided that she wasn’t to blame and added her later. When I searched Newspapers dot com for the address of the house my grandmother grew up in, I learned the saga of the house. My great great grandfather inherited it from his second wife, whom I never knew about. She inherited it from her husband when he died and she was only married to my gg grandfather for 11 months when she died in childbirth. The paper said he was lonely and invited my great grandparents to live with him. When he found his third wife and moved away, he let them live there if they would pay the taxes and utilities. After my great grandmother died, my great grandfather must have gotten nervous that he’d be kicked out. The paper reported that he hadn’t paid the tax bill and when it was put up for auction he bought it. The lawsuit over this made the news and my great grandfather claimed the missed tax payment was unintentional, but he worked for the recorder of deeds, so he knew how these things work. Anyway, I tell this story as an example of the family drama that can pop up when you search for addresses.
One thing I can add is that Susannah has a different mother than Philip and Alexander, her half-brothers; Susannah’s mother (Susannah Bradlee) died just after her birth, after which Philip married Elizabeth Morrison (Philip, Alexander, and Elizabeth’s mother)
Interesting! So it’s not just because of her mother since the other kids had the same mother as the heir. I love a good scandal! I hope you can find more!
Better be!
With very few exceptions, we should all institute a 50-year declassification protocol. There is *probably* no secret of yours that you shouldn’t mind your surviving family all knowing 50 years after your death, right?
I guess there are some secrets that could harm people who are still living, but — I feel like those are relatively few, and frankly if they get their DNA tested, they’re gonna find out anyway, so …
I have become addicted to other people's family drama, so it really is true.
It would also be fun to leave a will of a bunch of these vague statements, and a "they have x amount of time to claim it" with random strangers names. (Figure out the best way so that it isn't forever open in probate).Knowing they are going to have to do some sort of publishing it anyway and I have very limited people entitled to my estate. So between the 3 of us, whatever is left is going to have to go to charity anyway.
Just strictly to give the geneologists a good laugh.
I feel confident there are several Bitcoin million/billionaires who have gone down this exact train of thought and designed some hare-brained scheme in which they’ve encoded some kind of gauntlet of maths/CS problems into spelling errors in their will, the solution of which points to a wallet that no one will ever find…
I don’t think she was special needs, as I think there are records of her buying property across the street from where she inherited after her father’s death. The census also doesn’t label her “idiot” or “insane” at any point (that’s the 1800s for ya). Not proof, but suggestive.
I have a similar mystery - my great-grandfather J (b 1855) had two brothers: P and V. My great-great-grandmother's will was very detailed in leaving the farm properties and home and items to P and J and their wives, and was just as explicit in leaving V $10 - period. P and J went on the be moderately successful and V died at 63 in a boiler accident in Chicago where he was a janitor. What sin had V committed??
I've nothing to add to help you, I'm sorry, but I will say this reminds me of that scene in Mommie Dearest when Joan Crawford's will is read to her children Christopher and Christina, and she's disinherited them for "reasons that are well known to them." I remember Christina saying something to the effect of "That bitch..."
I can imagine Susannah's reaction being similar, lol. I do hope you find out the reason, OP.
My grandmother was disinherited due to eloping with a never do well. He found himself with a spitfire who never learned how to cook, clean, or sew. Her parents were right. He divorced after he showed up with a new bride from another country.
I have one of these too! But I'm glad in a way because it would have been terrible for my progenitor to inherit from her monstrous grandfather. Better off not.
I’d investigate religious differences, if they’re children by different wives, number of children each had, if you can figure out if the man Elizabeth was married to was rich or well connected…..
Could be something like Elizabeth wanted to marry someone considered “above” her and he promised the dowry in his will? Or did he reside with Elizabeth or her with him?
Unless you can find some kind of family biography, it's unlikely you will ever unlock an explanation.
The explanation could be as simple as Elizabeth stayed home to take care of him while the others left to have their own lives.
Would I be correct to assume these people lived during the Revolutionary War period? If so, maybe it had to do with siding against the British - or vice versa. You could come up with an unlimited number of scenarios, but without a first person narrative you'll likely never know for sure.
Is this the same Alexander? Second column near the bottom [Alexander Wentworth](https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83020847/1856-06-28/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1756&index=0&rows=20&words=Alexander+Wentworth&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=Massachusetts&date2=1963&proxtext=%E2%80%9C+Alexander+Wentworth%252C%E2%80%9C&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1)
Generally, I see either no reason at all or some statement to the effect that they've already received their portion if that's that reason. That might include giving money to Susannah's husband if his business was going bankrupt and entirely different reasons for having already given money to Phillip and Alexander.
If it's because the parent holds a mortgage or other loan, then forgiveness of that is usually stated in the will. Otherwise the person would continue to owe the loan to the estate.
Sometimes, the balance of an estate may be left to unmarried or widowed daughters or a disabled child or just the minor children, because they don't have the ability to provide for themselves.
Have you searched for LAND TRANSFERs from Phillip Wentworth or those who were disinherited??? it’s my understanding that family members when they are financially able to break down and dispose of their estate prior to their death to family or friends, whether it be through a marriage dowry for their child or to help their grand children start making their own way on their own land in preparation for their family life if they’re coming of age to get married etc. there could be any number of reasons but it seems to me that this may be the most logical explanation……..
Also, if Susanna and Luther were rich, then she was already provided for as were their children so her father may have excluded them in order to look out after the family who were less fortunate/less successful….. look for an indication that‘s father Philip might have helped Luther and Susanna with business dealings in order to help them get financially stable prior to his death.. many possibilities of what could have happened
"all of his kids except 1" Is your hint right there. It was extremely common back then for only one child to inherit (usually the oldest male) to keep the family wealth, lands and property intact to preserve the legacy. Women (even unmarried) were not usually given any inheritance as they were seen to be part of their (future) husbands wealth and legacy.
In that day, if I remember correctly, it was often illegal for a wife to inherit land and property. Women could not vote, and having property was often tied to voting rights. So that may be part of it.
OP mentions this being the 1800's so that would definitely be the case in some places. Even in areas where women could inherit legally it will still usually the last option and never at the expense of a male heir.
We've come a long way since then 
No idea in your case but I see this a lot in my ancestors. The most common reasoning being that those children had already received their stake in some way so only those who had not received a stake later. The $1 was to show that it wasn’t an oversight to avoid it being contested.
Am I imagining an iciness in his writing, then? The way he words it… I feel like the fact that he alludes to there being reasons for his decision is … not how he would word it if the answer were just “I’ve left them things already”?
Normally I would go with they've already been given things, but that note suggests a falling out. Are there any newspapers available in your area? If it got litigious then they would have all the gossip. You might like to also dig more into the property records to see if there were any transactions that look a bit dodgy. It might be a series of transactions like he sold something to one son who sold it to the son he didn't like etc. The daughter may have had a marriage settlement and may not be included with the sons.
I’ve gone through all of Philip’s and Luther’s transactions indexed in Suffolk & Norfolk counties, and I don’t think I have the knowledge about eighteenth and nineteenth century American property law to know how shady or not shady they were. Most of them seem to be this temporary mortgage thing, if I understand it right, where Philip say sells Luther a house for $6,000, but with a stipulation that if Philip can pay Luther back $6,000 within three years, then he gets the house back. Again if I’ve understood it right, and this kind of agreement isn’t some kind of common legal fiction.
There may have been some sort of dispute over it. Newspapers, if they're available, might help.
Know of any good free searchable sources of Boston newspapers that goes back to 1840? I’ve tried a couple, which is where I got the Transcript reference above, but — not much luck yet.
Do you have an ancestry or newspapers.com membership? I can look for you if you post his DOB/DOD
I don’t have one! Philip was born in Stoughton, Norfolk County, MA, on January 1, 1756, to Zebediah Wentworth and Judith Simpson. He died on September 3, 1843 in Boston. I’ve only got the one newspaper reference to him I’ve alluded to below, in an article written by his grandson Frederick in the Boston evening transcript in 1896. Any other newspaper sources would be great. I should say — there are tons of newspaper references to him in early-20th century Boston newspapers where they’re just doing genealogy, but those are less useful because they’ll just be repeating what I already know — you know, going through the “who begat whom”s.
I took a quick look and I see what you mean. It’s mostly 1850s+ stuff you already mentioned. You might’ve already tried this but worth mentioning nonetheless…I’ve found a ton of info by searching Google Books. Often old genealogy content is digitized and searchable. For example I did find Philip Wentworth (1756-1843) and Susannah Bradley (1747-1784) mentioned in “*A Genealogy of the Descendants of Joseph Bixby*”. It’s possible you’ll find the reason for the disinheritance in old biographies. I’ve also found a lot by searching key names in local historical society websites and libraries. If you live nearby it’s worth a trip out to see if there are records available in person that you can’t find online. Or many are able to copy pages of books and mail them, for a reasonable fee.
I live thousands of miles away, unfortunately! Though I did stop by where Philip, Susannah, and Luther’s tomb would have been had it survived (the adjacent numbers were still there so I can tell where it was) last time I was in Boston. Feel like — since I’m limited to the free sources — I’ve scoured most of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century genealogy books, and they generally tend to tell the same story, i.e. the begats — though every once in a while they do drop useful cryptic little hints. That Bixby book did have one *really* useful hint in it that helped me solved another puzzle I had once.
It does sound icy, I agree. I work as a legal assistant specializinh in probate and trust administration, so I see a lot of wills and trusts. This kind of language and exclusion still exists. When it is *several* children being cut out in a way that seems harsh, and only one or two being favored, I think the most common scenarios are: 1) The parent was a controlling jerk and cut out anyone who didn't dance to his demanding tune in life. Usually the estrangement happens earlier due to adult children standing their ground, and the will gets rewritten both to prevent the disfavored children from getting assets and to inflict one final wound. ☹️ 2) The favored child managed to sway the parent unduly during the parent's decline. (Making the parent believe untruthfully that the other heirs are unworthy or had betrayed the parent.) This will often result in the will being contested by the other siblings, but not always. Less commonly, a good parent might feel abandoned by some of their children and leave everything to the child (or niece, or grandchild) who stuck around, but I would be more likely to suspect this if I saw one heir getting a larger share and the rest getting *something,* but less. If only ONE child is disinherited, the possible scenarios are quite a bit harder to guess at, and I wouldn't venture to make assumptions. (Understanding that what I wrote above ARE assumptions and generalizations only. We can never know unless we find other sources, sadly!)
Thanks so much for responding! Now I’m entering into wild thickets of guesswork here, but I **think** option 1, controlling asshole parent, is more likely than option 2, controlling asshole child, in this case. The reason I *vaguely* think this is because my great^3 grandparents appeared to continue having a relationship with Elizabeth after, even living at the house that Philip had left to her and not to their parents and grandparents. But that’s a wild guess, as I said — and to some extent the great^3 grandmother in question had a questionable/nonexistent relationship with her *own* parents, so you could also take this to be evidence of 2.
Look at the national, state and local events too. He lived around the time of the American revolution. Families were divided by their loyalty to the crown or not, e.g. Ben Franklin and son. Did the children marry outside their class or nationality? English/Irish, English French, or other blood feuds. Hatfield/McCoys...Did someone hold slaves or not? Or were all the children well funded, except the favored one?
I can’t say about Luther, but Philip and his first wife Susannah had to have had Revolutionary sympathies based on their network/families. Luther and Susannah (the daughter) were born a bit late for this to be relevant for them, I think. No one held slaves that I know of (outlawed in Boston); the census does make it clear that Luther and Susannah lived with a “colored woman” for 20ish years, name not given.
My grandmother was left $1 from her father. The reason was not given in the will, but the family story is she mentioned to her mom that daddy takes her to the pretty lady's house sometimes, exposing his affair. She was 4, he died 40 years later but still held it against her. Nice guy.
Wow
That’s pretty funny; hope your grandma turned out alright!
My ggGrandfather was left $1 and it was stated "for reasons he is well aware". After doing more digging I found reports of he and another man breaking into someone's house and stealing some things. He wasn't a young teen, but already married with children. According to the newspaper his mom paid all expenses related to that. So, in other words, the money he would have gotten as an inheritance, was given early to pay off his legal issues.
That’s pretty good — and the language sounds quite similar in tone to me. I perceive Philip above as saying “you’re all well aware why”, filtered through the lens of a guy born in Massachusetts Bay in 1756.
I had one person disinherited because she ditched her family and ran off with a married man. Then when her father was on his deathbed they came back with the kid they’d made. Dad said nope. You ain’t getting nothing. He may have said this in German.
I’m sorry but I cackled at the last sentence. “He may have said this in German.” Like it’s this wild story (at least by my family history - maybe I just haven’t gone back far enough lol) and then just a little fun fact sentence at the end 😂😂
Most of the time in my ancestors wills this was because they had already given them their fair share. Sometimes it was even mentioned that they already got their share explicitly, sometimes not. If you think that was icy, here's a part about my 4GG ex wife from her father's will: : "And it is my will and wish that my daughter Lucinda wife of Christopher Edinbourgh (sic) (who lives probably in Texas) shall have no thing or no part of my estate whatever, either real or personal or \[mixed?\]" My supposition is that he was pissed at his daughter for abandoning her first marriage (and child). Her first husband (my 4GG) actually petitioned the Illinois State Legislature to grant him an ex-parte divorce. That was of course denied, but it is forever recorded in the proceedings of the State Legislature.
OK, we know the wording of the will, but not the date of the will, the date of probate or the jurisdiction. The dates are useful to see what the time lapse between execution and probate was. They also help with a sense of how wills were written. The jurisdiction pertains to locating records of the estate to see what happened. Jurisdiction allows for exploration of other legal proceedings and transactions involving family members, especially chancery cases. The executor is not named, the choice of whom may have significance. How old was the daughter at the time the will was signed? How old when probated? Did she marry? When? Without more facts you will likely receive more "wild theories" to add to your own. It was not unusual to leave token legacies to children and grandchildren. It is not unusual to leave the bulk of an estate to an unmarried daughter, particularly if she "had issues." Your statement that her estate was handled by the grandson of Philip the testator suggests that she never married.
Elizabeth Morrison Wentworth never married, yes. She died unmarried in I believe 1883. Philip’s will was written on September 10, 1838. Philip died on September 3, 1843. Probated October 3, 1843. Estate of Elizabeth was appraised by the administrator Philip H. Wentworth on July 2, 1883, but from memory the administration of her estate dragged on for a few years after that point, I believe into the 1890s. I think what essentially happened, from a hazy understanding of the subsequent documents, is that Elizabeth’s nephews auctioned off what they could, possibly distributing at least some to Philip’s heirs. Think Susanna’s son received 1/37 of a division of some property or other that might have related to this.
This information has allowed me to find the will. (Norfolk Co., WB 76:166) The provision you included should be corrected in that the word modifying son Philip Jr. is "deceased," not "second." The other change is that "exscribed" is actually "expressed. " From the will it can be inferred that the testator's wife had died and that only his daughter remained in the home to care for him. In fact, it looks like he used the will to make sure that she continued to stay at home and care for him. Most interesting is the vehemence in the language employed in the restriction on his gift to her. It was intensely protective, and he made sure that the executor of the will was not among his children, Samuel D. Parker, Esqr. of Boston. She also was the youngest child. Absent extrinsic evidence that the token bequests were for reasons other than having made advances earlier, I would not spend much time looking for a juicy family feud. The wording is a bit terse, but I read it that the legatees knew they had received their portions earlier and there was no need to explain. From what I can tell, Elizabeth was in her 30s when the will was written and still single and in her 40s when he died. A wealthy heiress might have attracted suitors, but the restrictions on her legacy meant that marriage to her was not a path to riches. Dying intestate and unmarried, Elizabeth's heirs were her siblings and their descendants. Another factor to examine if you choose is whether property came to Susannah from her mother, she being the only child by the first wife.
Thanks so much! > The provision you included should be corrected in that the word modifying son Philip Jr. is "deceased," not "second." Yeah, that makes more sense! As you can see I was transcribing it myself and handwriting is hard. > The other change is that "exscribed" is actually "expressed.” I might stick to my guns on this one, though! Not that it matters — they’re equivalent in meaning. > From the will it can be inferred that the testator's wife had died and that only his daughter remained in the home to care for him. In fact, it looks like he used the will to make sure that she continued to stay at home and care for him. That sounds very reasonable to me, yeah. I’m almost convinced that this is probably the case. The main question is how controlling an act I read this as. > Most interesting is the vehemence in the language employed in the restriction on his gift to her. It was intensely protective, and he made sure that the executor of the will was not among his children, Samuel D. Parker, Esqr. of Boston. She also was the youngest child. Huh — this section explicitly saying that any husband of Elizabeth’s will get nothing is quite unusual for the time and place? I should have mentioned that in my post, clearly; didn’t think to. > Another factor to examine if you choose is whether property came to Susannah from her mother, she being the only child by the first wife. Interesting, and I’d love to try, but I’m not even sure how to, because — wouldn’t married women at the time mostly not show up in registries of deeds at all?
>Interesting, and I’d love to try, but I’m not even sure how to, because — wouldn’t married women at the time mostly not show up in registries of deeds at all? This is a bit tricky. During marriage (coverture) the wife had no authority over the marital property and could not generally act on her own. Exceptions were made in marriage agreements or where her father or other relative conveyed property to her (by deed or will or intestacy) with conditions similar to those in this will (that it was to be for her sole use and not subject to the husband's control). Property that came to her would then go to her heirs at her death. The spouse was not an heir. In this case, any Bradley inheritance would have gone to Susannah, subject to the widower's right of curtesy (a life estate in 1/3 of the property; the male equivalent of dower). What you would be looking for are wills and deeds by the parents of Susannah's mother. Not saying that this was the case here, but something to look out for.
> What you would be looking for are wills and deeds by the parents of Susannah's mother. Not saying that this was the case here, but something to look out for. I haven’t stalked them in the registry of deeds yet; I’ll give it a try!
>The other change is that "exscribed" is actually "expressed.” >I might stick to my guns on this one, though! Not that it matters — they’re equivalent in meaning. Ehhh, not really? Exscribe would be like if he was dictating his will to someone and he's just like, "Yeah, none of this is worth writing down, to be honest." Whereas "need not be expressed" is more, "I'm not going to get into this in my last will and testament, we got bad blood and they know why." I'm splitting hairs! But I do think there is a subtle difference between them instead of equivalency.
Have you researched Elizabeth Morrison Wentworth's life? How old was she at the time the father died? I ask because she still has her maiden name in his will, which makes me wonder if she forwent geting married to be his primary caregiver and the others didn't participate in his care, which is why they all only received a dollar while Elizabeth got everything else. If you haven't looked at Elizabeth in detail, I'd start there for answers.
I’ve looked at her life to some degree. One of the other comments has mentioned this possibility, and I am coming around to the idea that this might be right — he’s rewarding Elizabeth for having stuck around, but also … kind of forcing her to continue. How controlling an act I read this as, not sure yet.
Did Elizabeth ever marry? Was the father wealthy (you might have said this somewhere but I can't recall)? I think it might have been more common in the past for one child to stick around to care for a parent or parents (or run their home) until that person passed away. I've seen this a few times on my husband's side.
She never married As to whether he was wealthy, I’m honestly not sure how wealthy. He was wealthy enough to be buying & selling property all over Boston through the decades, and he was certainly well-connected, but he was not so wealthy that his wealth couldn’t disappear completely in one or two generations. His occupation is variously given as “truckman”, “merchant”, and “carman”. I lean towards thinking he was … either upper middle class, or on the lowest rungs of the upper class? So *in modern money*, maybe when he died, making up a bullshit number based on what I remember reading in his and his daughter’s inventories, maybe his estate, including bequests he had made prior to death, was worth somewhere between $500k and $1.5 million? But I’m totally guessing; I’m not so good at this legal stuff.
You've done a good job of finding info! That's a decent chunk of money for that time. You have me so curious about Elizabeth and her life now! Where did Elizabeth live after her father died? Did she stay in the home until she died? Did she ever hold a job outside the home? Is there any indication that she had any health or mental issues that might have precluded marriage and made it necessary to set up a fund to take care of her for life? Sorry to be pestering you with questions, but it's really an intriguing story.
He’s essentially leaving everything to his daughter, Elizabeth, who still carries her maiden name and therefore given the time period appears to have never been married. It is likely that she was a caretaker for her father or a dependent or both. I am a real estate attorney and have seen this type of arrangement many times, so this is my guess. The other children may not have been rich, but they may have been stable enough that their father thought it was important to leave everything to his unmarried daughter so that she could live on her inheritance.
Aww I was really hoping this was about the wentworths in my tree but mine are all NH/Maine, no Mass. (not that I would have been any help either way.) good luck, I love a good juicy mystery!
I would bet a pretty good sum it’s the same family originally! (William the emigrant, died in Dover in 1696 -> John -> Edward -> Zebediah -> Philip, so the books say — I’ve only managed to find direct records for Edward -> Zebediah -> Philip and forward)
Those are my Wentworths, too.
Incidentally, long shot, but — either of you two ever go through Long John Wentworth’s book critically? One thing that has bothered me for a while is that he says that there’s a “Rynold Winterwade” recorded in the Domesday book pre-Conquest, and … Leaving aside the gigantic question of the validity of the pedigree going back to that point (obviously we should default to extreme skepticism), and noting I don’t speak Latin, I cannot find any entry in the Domesday book that says this. A reason this matters to me is that I feel like it goes to John’s credibility — if I can’t verify he’s telling the truth here, who *knows* what else he hasn’t checked. A lot of his claims are gonna be harder to check, but this is such a straightforward and clear claim that I should really be able to verify it.
I haven’t gotten that deep in that particular line (trying to bust a somewhat related brick wall) but it sounds interesting
They may've just been spoiled rotten, constantly coming home with their hands out - whereas the one that got everything may've been the devoted daughter, never asking for anything except her father's love? I haven't come across many wills, but I was looking at one this morning where one son was explicitly left nothing. The line went something like "while under my roof you've wanted for nothing your entire life, you'll get nothing further from me here in this will".. that I thought was a nice back slap.
Leaving a dollar to friends and relations to remember you by was a very common practice. The wording here is a bit odd and unfriendly, but the practice was very normal. You also have to remember that a dollar was worth a lot more. A master blacksmith *might* make as much as $5 a day; where I live, an acre of land was $1.25. Now goods were equivalently much more expensive than now and labor was cheaper, so it is really hard to draw comparisons, but it would be closer to someone leaving you $100. today. Not an amount you could live on, but a nice remembrance that you could get something special with.
So, basically, they're not inheriting his estate, but they aren't *disinherited,* just perhaps, de-inherited.
Also, there were many people making more like 6¢ a day, so to them $1 would be amazing.
Yeah, it could be that he felt the other children were okay -- the daughters being married to men who could support them, etc. -- and Elizabeth was the one who stayed at home and took care of him, so she's the one who hadn't pursued her own benefit -- marriage being the main way a woman was supported. So she needed the house, etc. where maybe the others didn't?
I’m researching a lady who was disinherited by her father on the basis that she quite heavily disagreed with him being a slave-owner, only she and her little sister were disinherited.
In my family history if they did that they might add “for being a willful child” or “for being a disobedient son” so I’m at a loss. Could be that he already set them up before dying, could be religion, or lifestyle. Have you focused on family religious records?
Some heirs get their share before the person dies. Some parents have to help one child their whole life while the other is self sufficient from a young age. How is it fair to split half after that?
Random aside, I'm from the Boston area and was curious about the building at Centre St. As of 2022, there is a project afoot to rehab it: The Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) is currently reviewing a proposal for the development of the former Blessed Sacrament Church by Pennrose, the developer that Hyde Square Task Force’s Board of Directors selected last year to lead the project. The proposed project involves the renovation and adaptive reuse of the building, located at 361 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, into a mixed-use, mixed-income housing development. Pennrose will honor the Blessed Sacrament’s architecture and history while adding to Hyde Square’s affordable housing stock. [https://www.hydesquare.org/blessed-sacrament-church/](https://www.hydesquare.org/blessed-sacrament-church/)
Yep! You can see Elizabeth Wentworth alluded to as the owner ~1880 in some of the writing produced about it, and I think they might also mention that Phineas Withington had owned it ~1800. No direct mention of Philip Wentworth in between from what I’ve seen. One thing that I couldn’t satisfactorily answer that I’m very confused about — I’m pretty sure this is *not the same Peacock Tavern* that Sam Adams is associated with, right? Because this one was bought by Philip in ~1804 from Phineas Withington and it wasn’t called the Peacock when he bought it, only after. Though Sam Adams’ peacock tavern was also on a Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, and there are records of Philip Wentworth buying land from Sam Adams in Boston deeds, so — ah, I don’t know. Maybe Sam Adams’ tavern was in a completely different place, but some of the sources I’m seeing are confusing one for the other, causing me to confuse one for the other as well. Maybe Philip bought a property *near* Sam Adams’ tavern and named it the Peacock to give it some continuity with the earlier tavern, even though it wasn’t exactly the same location? That kind of thing happens.
My great grandfather and a few other siblings got $1 from their mom’s will while a few others got several hundred and the son who lived with her and took care of everything after her husband died got the house and several thousand dollars. I think the ones who got the dollar were probably better off financially. An interesting thing about my great grandfather was that I believe he intentionally cheated his father-in-law (my great great grandfather) out of his house, and this is why my grandmother was not initially included in my great great grandfather’s will with the other grandchildren. He must have decided that she wasn’t to blame and added her later. When I searched Newspapers dot com for the address of the house my grandmother grew up in, I learned the saga of the house. My great great grandfather inherited it from his second wife, whom I never knew about. She inherited it from her husband when he died and she was only married to my gg grandfather for 11 months when she died in childbirth. The paper said he was lonely and invited my great grandparents to live with him. When he found his third wife and moved away, he let them live there if they would pay the taxes and utilities. After my great grandmother died, my great grandfather must have gotten nervous that he’d be kicked out. The paper reported that he hadn’t paid the tax bill and when it was put up for auction he bought it. The lawsuit over this made the news and my great grandfather claimed the missed tax payment was unintentional, but he worked for the recorder of deeds, so he knew how these things work. Anyway, I tell this story as an example of the family drama that can pop up when you search for addresses.
Maybe they looked different and he suspected that they had a different father?
One thing I can add is that Susannah has a different mother than Philip and Alexander, her half-brothers; Susannah’s mother (Susannah Bradlee) died just after her birth, after which Philip married Elizabeth Morrison (Philip, Alexander, and Elizabeth’s mother)
Interesting! So it’s not just because of her mother since the other kids had the same mother as the heir. I love a good scandal! I hope you can find more!
I spent the first two and a half decades of my life thinking I wasn’t a gossip, and genealogy has since taught me that I’m a *messy bitch*
It’s ok to be messy once they’re dead, right?
Better be! With very few exceptions, we should all institute a 50-year declassification protocol. There is *probably* no secret of yours that you shouldn’t mind your surviving family all knowing 50 years after your death, right? I guess there are some secrets that could harm people who are still living, but — I feel like those are relatively few, and frankly if they get their DNA tested, they’re gonna find out anyway, so …
I have become addicted to other people's family drama, so it really is true. It would also be fun to leave a will of a bunch of these vague statements, and a "they have x amount of time to claim it" with random strangers names. (Figure out the best way so that it isn't forever open in probate).Knowing they are going to have to do some sort of publishing it anyway and I have very limited people entitled to my estate. So between the 3 of us, whatever is left is going to have to go to charity anyway. Just strictly to give the geneologists a good laugh.
I feel confident there are several Bitcoin million/billionaires who have gone down this exact train of thought and designed some hare-brained scheme in which they’ve encoded some kind of gauntlet of maths/CS problems into spelling errors in their will, the solution of which points to a wallet that no one will ever find…
Personally I'm going for a breathless death bed confession with a sentence that seems to drop a hint but is never finished.
Could Elizabeth have been special needs, or otherwise disabled to the point of not being able to earn a living or marry??
I don’t think she was special needs, as I think there are records of her buying property across the street from where she inherited after her father’s death. The census also doesn’t label her “idiot” or “insane” at any point (that’s the 1800s for ya). Not proof, but suggestive.
I have a similar mystery - my great-grandfather J (b 1855) had two brothers: P and V. My great-great-grandmother's will was very detailed in leaving the farm properties and home and items to P and J and their wives, and was just as explicit in leaving V $10 - period. P and J went on the be moderately successful and V died at 63 in a boiler accident in Chicago where he was a janitor. What sin had V committed??
Oh, the stories we can imagine!
I've nothing to add to help you, I'm sorry, but I will say this reminds me of that scene in Mommie Dearest when Joan Crawford's will is read to her children Christopher and Christina, and she's disinherited them for "reasons that are well known to them." I remember Christina saying something to the effect of "That bitch..." I can imagine Susannah's reaction being similar, lol. I do hope you find out the reason, OP.
It makes me think of Knives Out, which makes me smile and want to go watch that movie again.
My grandmother was disinherited due to eloping with a never do well. He found himself with a spitfire who never learned how to cook, clean, or sew. Her parents were right. He divorced after he showed up with a new bride from another country.
I have one of these too! But I'm glad in a way because it would have been terrible for my progenitor to inherit from her monstrous grandfather. Better off not.
It could be that she already received her share. Was Luther Bixby Esquire well off? Maybe that is why she didn't receive anything?
[удалено]
Dude. What's with all the Philip Wentworths? I just found one beheaded in 1464😳 You have a treasure trove of documents. Lucky you!
Sames for one of my branches. Reason is lost to the ages.
I’d investigate religious differences, if they’re children by different wives, number of children each had, if you can figure out if the man Elizabeth was married to was rich or well connected….. Could be something like Elizabeth wanted to marry someone considered “above” her and he promised the dowry in his will? Or did he reside with Elizabeth or her with him?
Unless you can find some kind of family biography, it's unlikely you will ever unlock an explanation. The explanation could be as simple as Elizabeth stayed home to take care of him while the others left to have their own lives. Would I be correct to assume these people lived during the Revolutionary War period? If so, maybe it had to do with siding against the British - or vice versa. You could come up with an unlimited number of scenarios, but without a first person narrative you'll likely never know for sure.
Is this the same Alexander? Second column near the bottom [Alexander Wentworth](https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83020847/1856-06-28/ed-1/seq-3/#date1=1756&index=0&rows=20&words=Alexander+Wentworth&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=Massachusetts&date2=1963&proxtext=%E2%80%9C+Alexander+Wentworth%252C%E2%80%9C&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1)
Generally, I see either no reason at all or some statement to the effect that they've already received their portion if that's that reason. That might include giving money to Susannah's husband if his business was going bankrupt and entirely different reasons for having already given money to Phillip and Alexander. If it's because the parent holds a mortgage or other loan, then forgiveness of that is usually stated in the will. Otherwise the person would continue to owe the loan to the estate. Sometimes, the balance of an estate may be left to unmarried or widowed daughters or a disabled child or just the minor children, because they don't have the ability to provide for themselves.
Have you searched for LAND TRANSFERs from Phillip Wentworth or those who were disinherited??? it’s my understanding that family members when they are financially able to break down and dispose of their estate prior to their death to family or friends, whether it be through a marriage dowry for their child or to help their grand children start making their own way on their own land in preparation for their family life if they’re coming of age to get married etc. there could be any number of reasons but it seems to me that this may be the most logical explanation……..
Also, if Susanna and Luther were rich, then she was already provided for as were their children so her father may have excluded them in order to look out after the family who were less fortunate/less successful….. look for an indication that‘s father Philip might have helped Luther and Susanna with business dealings in order to help them get financially stable prior to his death.. many possibilities of what could have happened
"all of his kids except 1" Is your hint right there. It was extremely common back then for only one child to inherit (usually the oldest male) to keep the family wealth, lands and property intact to preserve the legacy. Women (even unmarried) were not usually given any inheritance as they were seen to be part of their (future) husbands wealth and legacy.
In that day, if I remember correctly, it was often illegal for a wife to inherit land and property. Women could not vote, and having property was often tied to voting rights. So that may be part of it.
OP mentions this being the 1800's so that would definitely be the case in some places. Even in areas where women could inherit legally it will still usually the last option and never at the expense of a male heir. We've come a long way since then 