3

What does the phrase "died leaving with other issue" mean when it is used in genealogy sources like Burke's Land Gentry?

The entry reads:

Walter Huntar, of Polmood, m. 26 Nov. 1525, Helen, dau. of John Tweedie, of Drummelzier. He grants a bond of maurent to Malcolm, Lord Fleming, "for art and part of ye slauchter of Lord John Fleming, his fader." In the next year Laird Walter is pardoned for "treasonable intercource" with the English during the war. He had with other issue, Robert Hunter, of Polmood, m. Margaret, dau. of Hon. John Seton, of Cariston. He d. 1569, leaving with other issue, Robert Huntar of Polmood, m. Katherine, dau. of William Hay....., and d. 1586, having had issue...

4

It simply means the person had other children.

The Legal Dictionary for the term issue states:

1) n. a person's children or other lineal descendants such as grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It does not mean all heirs, but only the direct bloodline. Occasionally, there is a problem in determining whether a writer of a will or deed meant issue to include descendants beyond his or her immediate children. While a child or children are alive, issue refers only to them, but if they are deceased then it will apply to the next living generation unless there is language in the document which shows it specifically does not apply to them.

The example given I interpret thus: Walter had son Robert and several other children (not named in Burke's). Then in turn Robert had a son Robert as well as other children. It is impossible to say anything about the mother in each case, but it seems to imply Robert was the son of Walter & Helen, and the younger Robert the son of Robert & Margaret.

Burke's often follows only one or two patrilineal lines. In most cases there were other children of the marriages who for brevity's sake were not named in Burke's.

| improve this answer | |
  • My question really is what the use of the word "other" means in these descriptions. In the entry I am reading from Burke's Landed Gentry, the normal listing says the male (name) who married the female (name) d. on a specific date, having had issue. In two instances the terminology is modified stating "leaving with other issue" instead. In another case it simply states "He had with other issue." Does this indicate in those instances that the child listed was not by his wife but by another woman instead? @Harry Vervet – Margaret Puckett Jul 7 '16 at 21:48
  • Hi @Margaret, can you include a full sentence or link? "He had with other issue" makes no grammatical sense. I would guess that it means he had other children not named in Burke's, but that's just a guess without seeing the entire sentence. I doubt it means they were children by another woman. – Harry Vervet Jul 7 '16 at 22:23
  • Hi @ Harry Ververt, the entry reads: Walter Huntar, of Polmood, m. 26 Nov. 1525, Helen, dau. of John Tweedie, of Drummelzier. He grants a bond of maurent to Malcolm, Lord Fleming, "for art and part of ye slauchter of Lord John Fleming, his fader." In the next year Laird Walter is pardoned for "treasonable intercource" with the English during the war. He had with other issue, Robert Hunter, of Polmood, m. Margaret, dau. of Hon. John Seton, of Cariston. He d. 1569, leaving with other issue, Robert Huntar of Polmood, m. Katherine, dau. of William Hay....., and d. 1586, having had issue... – Margaret Puckett Jul 7 '16 at 23:04
  • @Margaret Yes, it just means Walter had other children apart from Robert. Then in turn Robert had other children apart from his son Robert. We can't say anything about the mother in each case, but it seems to imply Robert was the son of Walter & Helen, and the younger Robert the son of Robert & Margaret. When reading Burke's I always find I have to take it sentence by sentence to make sense of it! – Harry Vervet Jul 7 '16 at 23:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.