Will of Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquess of Dorset

[Bookbox]

Snippet 50 – probate clause

Probatum fuit suprascriptum testamentum cora(m) d(omi)no apud Lamehith xviij^o die mens(is) Novembris Anno D(omi)nj

mill(es)imo quingentesimo xxxj^o Jurame(n)to D(omi)ne Margarete Relict(e) et executric(is) in h(uius)mo(d)i testamento no(m)i(n)at(e)  Ac approbatu(m)

et insinuatum  Et com(m)issa fuit admi(ni)strac(i)o o(mni)um et singulor(um) bonor(um) iur(iu)m et creditor(um) d(i)c(tu)m defunctum et h(uius)mo(d)i suu(m) testame(n)tum

qual(ite)rcumq(ue) concernen(tium) dict(e) executric(i) de bene et fidel(ite)r adm(in)istrand(o) ead(em)  Ac de pleno et fideli Inventario h(uius)mo(d)i conficiend(o) &c

Necnon de plano et vero compoto reddend(o)  Ad sancta dei Ev(a)ngelia iurat(e) in debita iuris forma  Res(er)vata p(otes)tate similem

comissione(m) faciend(i) alijs executoribus in h(uius)mo(d)i testamento no(m)i(n)at(is) cum ven(er)int &c admissur(is).

The above-written will was proved before the lord at Lambeth on the 18th day of the month of November in the year of the Lord one thousand five hundred and thirty-one by the oath of Lady Margaret, the relict and the executrix named in this will; and it was approved and inserted (in the register); and administration of all and singular the goods, rights and credits of any kind whatsoever concerning the said deceased and this his will was granted to the said executrix, to well and faithfully administer the same; and to complete a full and faithful inventory etc. of this; and also to submit a plain and true account; sworn on the Holy Gospels of God in due form of law; power reserved of making the like grant to the other executors named in this will when they shall come etc. to be admitted.

[WillowG]

Oh, thank you so much, Bookbox!!!  This was utterly wonderful!!! So impressive!!! I don’t understand how you do it, truly! Amazing 

So my well-beloved Margaret ended up with all the responsibility herself, in spite of the impressive list of intended co-executors. Hm. I wonder if that was by her choice or not.

Thank you so much to everyone on this thread for all of your wonderful help!!! I could not be more grateful, nor more in awe of what you do 

[Bookbox]

You're welcome. I expect we've all learnt something in the process. I certainly have.

[WillowG]

Yes, I have learned lots 😊😊😊 And gleaned a lot of interesting information from it that I would otherwise have had no possible way of obtaining. I have honestly had lots of fun with this 😊❤️😊

[Maiden Stone]

So my well-beloved Margaret ended up with all the responsibility herself, in spite of the impressive list of intended co-executors. Hm. I wonder if that was by her choice or not.

 As I understand it she was the one (or the first one) who went to swear the oath. "...power reserved of making the like grant to the other executors ... when they shall come etc. to be admitted."
The other executors might have been anywhere in the British Isles or beyond at the time. Perhaps that's one reason so many were named. Other reasons for multiple executors may be the complex instructions and properties spread out the length of England. (Only theories; I know nothing about wills from this period; my ancestors at the time were lowly shepherd sub-tenants of his lordship & would have had no need of wills.)
I read the potted biographies in some of the links you posted. It was mentioned that King Henry was apt to pile responsibilities on his associates with the result that they were overworked and administration became inefficient. One man was tasked with looking after affairs in a county in Southern England and on the Scottish border. He must have spent a lot of his life riding to all 4 points of the compass.
Another thought: maybe another reason for a long list of executors was to ensure that some of them would be around after he'd gone. Just in case any had lost their heads/died in battle/jousts/ of sweating sickness/been exiled/fled abroad etc. Uncertain times.

[Maiden Stone]

You're welcome. I expect we've all learnt something in the process. I certainly have.

So have I.
I've come across many of these folk or their relatives in history books, novels and on TV. Interesting to read a document and learn more about the background.
I think the word "utterly" should be used more often these days."Utterly beloved". 

[WillowG]

So my well-beloved Margaret ended up with all the responsibility herself, in spite of the impressive list of intended co-executors. Hm. I wonder if that was by her choice or not.

 As I understand it she was the one (or the first one) who went to swear the oath. "...power reserved of making the like grant to the other executors ... when they shall come etc. to be admitted."
The other executors might have been anywhere in the British Isles or beyond at the time. Perhaps that's one reason so many were named. Other reasons for multiple executors may be the complex instructions and properties spread out the length of England. (Only theories; I know nothing about wills from this period; my ancestors at the time were lowly shepherd sub-tenants of his lordship & would have had no need of wills.)
I read the potted biographies in some of the links you posted. It was mentioned that King Henry was apt to pile responsibilities on his associates with the result that they were overworked and administration became inefficient. One man was tasked with looking after affairs in a county in Southern England and on the Scottish border. He must have spent a lot of his life riding to all 4 points of the compass.
Another thought: maybe another reason for a long list of executors was to ensure that some of them would be around after he'd gone. Just in case any had lost their heads/died in battle/jousts/ of sweating sickness/been exiled/fled abroad etc. Uncertain times.

I think this is a very good insight, Maiden Stone. The only thing that strikes me as weird is that Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquis of Dorset, date of death is uniformly given as 10th of October 1530, while probate was only granted on the 18th of November. That should have given at least one of the other executors the time and opportunity to get their affairs in order and be present ...

[WillowG]

You're welcome. I expect we've all learnt something in the process. I certainly have.

So have I.
I've come across many of these folk or their relatives in history books, novels and on TV. Interesting to read a document and learn more about the background.
I think the word "utterly" should be used more often these days."Utterly beloved". 

Yes, I must admit that I have loved this entire process myself. We have brought them quite clearly to life, haven’t we? 😊

‘Utterly beloved’ is beautiful 😊😊😊

[WillowG]

Posting just in case anyone is interested in my findings on some more of the people mentioned in the will:

doctour Stephyns nowe secretarye unto the kynges grace - Probably this guy:
https://www.geni.com/people/Henry-Stephens-Esq/6000000003040758815
https://archive.org/stream/stevensgenealogy00stev#page/n29/search/Henry+Stephens

Mary Coplay x li to her mariage

The testator was married to Margaret Wotton, through her marriage Marchioness of Dorset. Margaret Wotton was the daughter of Sir Robert Wotton and Anne Belknap. Anne Belknap's sister Alice Belknap married William Shelley. Alice Belknap's children Elizabeth Shelley and Thomas Shelley married another set of brother and sister, Sir Roger Copley and Mary Copley, in a double marriage between the families.

A double marriage between families was common at the time, coupling off two sets of siblings. The testator's son Henry Grey's marriage to Katherine FitzAlan and his sister Katherine Grey's marriage to Henry FitzAlan was meant to be just such a double marriage. Henry Grey, however, famously jilted her, saddling his family with gigantic debts for the broken betrothal, and fatefully married Frances Brandon instead.

Sir Roger Copley and Elizabeth Shelley's eldest son was born sometime around 1532/4 (sources vary), making it likely that the double marriage took place around shortly after the time of the testator's bequest.

If that is indeed the right Mary Coplay, she was the bride of the testator's wife's nephew.

https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Roger-Copley-of-Gatton/6000000006444065515
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_Copley

From Kate Emerson's excellent Who's Who of Tudor Women (which we are allowed to quote from as long as we give credit):

ALICE BELKNAP (c.1475-1537)
Alice Belknap was one of the six daughters of Henry Belknap of Crofton, Kent and Knell, Beccles, Sussex  (d. July 3, 1488) and Margaret Knollys (1432-October 7, 1488) and the sister of Sir Edward Belknap (July 30, 1473-1521). She married William Shelley of London, Michelgrove, Sussex, and Mapledurham, Hampshire (1476-1549).  The date of their marriage settlement is July 10, 1511, but they appear to have married before that date. Some sources say as early as 1500. They had seven sons and seven daughters including John (d. 1550), Thomas, Edward (d. September 10, 1547), Richard (1513/14-1589), Elizabeth (d. December 25, 1560), James, Margaret, and Catherine. In London they lived in the parish of St. Sepulcre and Shelley was assessed at 300 marks in goods in the subsidy of 1523. His lands were valued at £140 a year. Alice had a servant named Jane Smith (d.1529) to whom she gave the manuscript known as the “Belknap Hours.” Jane married John Onley of Catesby Northamptonshire (d. November 22, 1537), who may have been brought up in the Belknap household and whose entry at the Inner Temple was sponsored by William Shelley. Portrait: tomb effigy with husband and fourteen children in St. Mary the Virgin, Clapham, Sussex.
http://www.tudorwomen.com/?page_i[d=646

Edited to add: Jane married John Onley of Catesby Northamptonshire (d. November 22, 1537) - Our old friends the Onleys