RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: londonscorpion on Friday 12 October 18 09:33 BST (UK)
-
Can anyone help me to understand the probate section of the will for John Diamont alias Diamond. My Latin is not that good!
-
This will was proved at London before the worshipful and eminent Master Thomas Pinfold, knight, Doctor of Laws, surrogate of the worshipful and eminent Master Richard Raines, knight, also Doctor of Laws, Master Keeper or Commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury lawfully constituted, on the nineteenth day of the month of October in the year of the Lord one thousand six hundred and eighty seven, by the oath of Margaret Diamont, relict of the said deceased and the executrix named in the said will, to whom administration was granted of all and singular the goods, rights and credits of the said deceased, to well and faithfully administer the same, she having first been sworn on the Holy Gospels of God. Examined.
-
Thanks Bookbox.
-
I have now transcribed most of the body of John's will, but I have a few gaps. Can any one help?
I have posted the whole transcription below and I am attaching a couple of snippets.
In the name of God Amen
The sixth day of September in the third year of the Reign of our Sovereign
Lord James the second by the grace of God of England Scotland France and Ireland
King defender of the ffaith xxx I John Diamont als Diamond of Hawkhurst
in the county of Kent GunFounder being sick and weak of body but of sound
and perfect mind and memory thanks be given therefore do hereby make and
ordain this to be my last will and testament in manner and form following
first I bequeath my Soul into the hands of Almighty God who gave it and
my body to the earth from whence it was taken to be decently buryed by
my Executor hereafter named xxx as for xxxxxx all xxxx goods chattels
and money xxx owing and personal estate whatsoever which it hath
pleased Almighty God in this life for to xxxxx me I give and bequeath them
all for the payment of my debts to be sold by Margarett my loving wife and
my debts by her to be paid and after my debts and funeral expenses be fully
paid and satisfied what shall remain I give unto the said Margarett my
wife whom I do freely make the sole executrix of this my last Will and
Testament and I do make and ordain John Collison of Hawkhurst xxxx
Butcher and John xxxxx of ????hurst in the county of Sussex yeoman
overseers of this my last will and testament in writing whereof I the said
John Diamont als Diamond xxx xxx x xx sett my hand and seal the
day and yeare first above written John Diamont sealed read published
delivered as the last Will and Testament of the said John Diamont
alias Diamond in the presence of us George Baker the mark of Ann
?? Worsley John Hook
-
First extract:
...of the ffaith &c... [&c = et c(etera)]
...Almighty God who gave it me &...
...And as for touching all such goods chattells
ready money Debt owing...
...for to lend me...
-
Second extract:
...of Hawkhurst abovsd [= abov(e)s(ai)d]
Butcher and John Wicker of Salehurst in the...
...have hereunto sett my hand and Seale...
...the marke of Anne
Worsley John ffoord
ADDED:
...Sealed read published &
delivered as the last Will and Testament of me the said...
-
Thanks horseley
A few comments on some oddities:
A. Who do you think would have been responsible for the quaint phraseology: “as for touching” and “for to lend”; the scribe or John Diamont, or was this just the way they spoke in those days? Have you come across this before?
B. Can anything be gleaned from the repetitive nature of some parts of the will?
C. In the last two lines I presume there were three witnesses: George Baker, Anne Worsley and John ffoord
(i) How would you spell “ffoord” in today speak?
(ii) Why is there no “and” or “&” between Worsley and John.
(iii) Why is the first letter of John’s surname not capitalised?
-
Thanks horseley
A few comments on some oddities:
A. Who do you think would have been responsible for the quaint phraseology: “as for touching” and “for to lend”; the scribe or John Diamont, or was this just the way they spoke in those days? Have you come across this before?
B. Can anything be gleaned from the repetitive nature of some parts of the will?
C. In the last two lines I presume there were three witnesses: George Baker, Anne Worsley and John ffoord
(i) How would you spell “ffoord” in today speak?
(ii) Why is there no “and” or “&” between Worsley and John.
(iii) Why is the first letter of John’s surname not capitalised?
My suggestions:
A. "touching" means something similar to "concerning", "relating to", probably taken from French usage. Not sure why "for to lend" is quaint or unusual at all.
B. The language in these wills is usually very formulaic and if it was drawn up by a professional in these matters it would use a very standard form on language - which includes repetition of phrases and repetition within phrases.
C. "ffoord" could be Foord, Ford, sometimes you see fforde. The way of writing a capital F in the type of writing you have here, made it look like a double lower case ff and this leads to a few families even today preferring their name to be written fforde, ffitch, etc.
No "and" between names? Probably this is a transcription of an original will and those names represent the people's signatures.
-
Thanks John, that helps.