Source: https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=811441.0
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:36:02
Document Index: 64650116

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 6', 'arts 8', 'art 9', 'arts 6', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'arts 7']

1445 will translation from Latin - part 9 (Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition) - RootsChat.Com
1445 will translation from Latin - part 9
Author Topic: 1445 will translation from Latin - part 9 (Read 142 times)
« on: Friday 12 April 19 15:04 BST (UK) »
Part 9 & the last one
JC_1445_9.JPG (28.35 kB, 575x200 - viewed 46 times.)
Re: 1445 will translation from Latin - part 9
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 13 April 19 10:00 BST (UK) »
... the younger of Ampton as assistant and supervisor of the executors carrying out and completing the said last will and testament. And I leave to each of my said executors 40 shillings, for their pains and [...]. In witness of this matter, to this my will I have fixed my seal. Given at Bernham aforesaid on the day and in the year abovesaid.
This will was proved at Norwich [illegible] and confirmed on the 22nd day of the month of March in the year of the Lord 1445,* and administration was granted to Thomas Drury & John Baxter, the executors, who were sworn in form of law; power reserved to Margaret, the relict and executrix written within, when she will come, etc. In witness of which, etc.
(* presumably 1446 in the modern calendar)
ADDED - the above section was later found to be from a different will -- see below.
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 13 April 19 10:17 BST (UK) »
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 13 April 19 11:46 BST (UK) »
Re-reading the whole will, I’m finding it puzzling. One set of executors is named in Part 6 (sealed at Ampton), and a different set in Parts 8-9 (sealed at Bernham), to whom probate is granted in Part 9. But there is apparently no statement revoking any of the earlier-named executors, such as you might expect in a codicil. Can you say if all these sections are continuous in the register, especially Parts 6 and 7?
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 13 April 19 12:04 BST (UK) »
Part 6 is the bottom of page 2, part 7 is the top of page 3
Full will here https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSND-39L4-T?i=105&cat=278818 pages 106 & 107 (and now 108)
The 2 sets of pages are the same and there is then this page on 108, sorry I hadn't noticed this before, so 7-9 are from a different will.
Slightly confused, but I think this is the real end of the will?
JC_1445_10.JPG (88.49 kB, 1425x456 - viewed 21 times.)
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 13 April 19 12:38 BST (UK) »
Thanks for the link and the explanation.
So Parts 7, 8 and 9 that were posted as belonging this will actually belong to the will of Edmund Heyford of Bernham, and it is just coincidental that Edmund's wife was also Margaret and that John Coket was his close friend Very confusing.
We will draw a veil over that, and I will do the correct probate clause for you later (if I'm spared).
« Reply #6 on: Saturday 13 April 19 12:51 BST (UK) »
Apologies again & thanks
« Reply #7 on: Saturday 13 April 19 14:12 BST (UK) »
The present will was proved, inserted (in the register) and pronounced to be a true and lawful will at Norwich, before us, the Official of the Consistory of Norwich, on the 13th day of the month of March in the year of the Lord 1445/46; and because the testator named within held designated goods in the said archdeaconry at the time of his death, administration of all and singular the goods relating to the said will being in the jurisdiction of the said Reverend Father was granted to Master Walter Coket, Rector of Livermere, Walter Coket of Ingham, John Coket of Bury St Edmunds, the executors named within, in form of law; power reserved by us of granting it to the other co-executors named in the same will, when they shall come to apply for it in form of law. In witness of which, etc.