RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: MattD30 on Monday 29 October 18 00:09 GMT (UK)
-
Hi
I recently obtained a copy of the 1633 Will of Richard Constants of Reculver and have been getting on with it ok until I reached the Probate section.
The probate section seems longer than usual and then following it there appear to be about four pages of Latin which I am struggling to work out. I can see various names in this section and I'm guessing it has something to do with the validity or Probate of the Will or perhaps something in it was being disputed.
Is anyone able to tell me what this might have been about?
I am having problems attaching images tonight but will try to post these tomorrow.
If anyone wants to see the full text of the Latin section pm me and I can email it to you.
Thanks for any help or ideas
Matt
-
Maybe your file is too big, Matt?
Remember it has to be under 500kb (I think)
Dawn M
-
Maybe your file is too big, Matt?
Remember it has to be under 500kb (I think)
Dawn M
Hi
Yes I think that's the case with this image. Unfortunately my laptop froze mid way through posting it and I didn't have time to retry. The probate section is quite long and I wanted to avoid posting it in two halves however I will try this and see if that works.
Matt
-
File size was too big for the original post unfortunately so I've cropped the images down into sections.
These first three images all form the Probate section of the Will and I'll post them in order. I'll post the Latin bit afterwards, although as this is longer I will only post a small section to start with.
Here is the first part.
Thanks for any ideas on this.
Matt
-
Sections 2 which continues on from part 1.
Matt
-
Here's the first piece of the long Latin section.
Matt
-
and here is the following section.
-
section 3
-
section 4
-
lastly - for now - section 5.
There are another three and a half pages of Latin text following this.
The only things I can pick out are the names of the people and some of the relationships.
I've never seen this much Latin in a Will lol!
Thanks again for any ideas or help.
Matt
-
The probate clause states that the will was proved by Ursula Constant, the widow, on 7 December 1633, and probate was confirmed on 8 May 1634.
In between those dates, a court case was brought by Ursula against Richard Constant’s children -- William, Richard and Dorothea. The background to the case is not given.
The rest of the document is a Judicial Sentence, setting out the court’s process in reaching a decision in the case – all in standard legalese. If you want to post the rest of it, I can probably summarize it, but it will not amount to much. It will tell you the final outcome, but it will not provide details of the dispute.
-
The probate clause states that the will was proved by Ursula Constant, the widow, on 7 December 1633, and probate was confirmed on 8 May 1634.
In between those dates, a court case was brought by Ursula against Richard Constant’s children -- William, Richard and Dorothea. The background to the case is not given.
The rest of the document is a Judicial Sentence, setting out the court’s process in reaching a decision in the case – all in standard legalese. If you want to post the rest of it, I can probably summarize it, but it will not amount to much. It will tell you the final outcome, but it will not provide details of the dispute.
Hi
Thanks for that. I suspected it might be something to do with some sort of dispute or legal case. I've also found out that in 1634 Ursula remarried, this time to a man named Thomas Whitfield whom she married by licence in Canterbury.
I wonder why Ursula was bringing a case against Richard's children? I believe Ursula was their mother but I'm not certain of that yet as I've only recently begun researching this family and haven't found a marriage for Richard yet.
Interestingly I also have the 1629 Will of Nicholas Constant who appears to be Richard's father and this includes a similar Latin section at the end.
Here is the rest of the Latin text from Richard Constant's Will. It would be great to have a summary of what is going on here and any help you can give would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Matt
PS I'll post this remaining part in 4 pieces as the file will be too big for one post. Each image should follow on directly from the last.
-
Next piece here.
-
Next piece.
-
Next and final section.
Can you recommend any good books or sources I can use if I want to transcribe this. I can read the will ok but my Latin isn't good enough to read this word for word.
Thank again
Matt
-
Can you recommend any good books or sources I can use if I want to transcribe this. I can read the will ok but my Latin isn't good enough to read this word for word.
Brooke Westcott: Making Sense of Latin Documents for Family & Local Historians (2014), published by The Family History Partnership, available from the usual online suppliers at a modest price. It will provide quick-fix answers to many questions.
But if you want to learn to read Latin documents for yourself, these two interactive online courses from TNA are helpful ...
Latin language
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/default.htm
Latin palaeography/handwriting
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latinpalaeography/
Two other useful books, for more in-depth study ...
Eileen Gooder: Latin for Local History: an Introduction (2nd edition, 1978)
Denis Stuart: Latin for Local and Family Historians: a Beginner’s Guide (1995)
-
It would be great to have a summary of what is going on here and any help you can give would be appreciated.
I'll have to finish it later tonight. There should be quite a bit more at the end, not posted yet?
As I said before, this document will only tell you the outcome. It won't tell you what was going on in the background.
-
Matt, could you also please check if there is a line missing between the extracts that you've labelled Latin1 and Latin2 ? It's the bit where the children are named.
Sorry, ignore that, my mistake. I was confused by the overlap.
-
Matt, could you also please check if there is a line missing between the extracts that you've labelled Latin1 and Latin2 ? It's the bit where the children are named.
Sorry, ignore that, my mistake. I was confused by the overlap.
Hi
Thanks for that. I've tried to crop the image so each pieces follows on from the previous, but as the writing was slanted in some place there is some overlap. I hope it hasn't caused you too much confusion.
I've been reading through the 1582 Will of Henry Rigden of Lower Hardres today and there appears to be a similar long Latin section at the end of that Will. I've noticed the word "writ" mentioned after he name of one of the beneficiaries. Hopefully understanding what is going on in Richard's Will which help me work out what is happening in Henry's Will too.
Thanks again for the help, it's very much appreciated.
Matt
-
To summarise, the will had been proved by Ursula Consant, the widow, on 7 December 1633. The children of the testator Richard Consant – William, Richard and Dorothy – had then challenged the will’s validity (we are not told in what way).
In order to consolidate her position in the face of that challenge, Ursula had gone back to court to get confirmation of probate. She had been represented by her lawyer, but the other parties (the children) had not attended court to put their case, despite being duly summoned and given every opportunity to do so, and they were therefore in contempt of court.
In his Judicial Sentence the judge confirmed that, after considering the evidence and consulting with other legal experts, he had found the will to be valid in every way, Ursula’s appointment as executrix was lawful, Richard Consant had been of sound mind when he wrote the will, and any challenge to its validity was groundless.
The Judicial Sentence was copied into the wills register, in order to leave no room for any future doubts. Confirmation of probate was issued on 8 May 1634, in the presence of witnesses Benjamin Cobb and Henry Huffam.
(I think there should be more text, following after your extract labelled Latin9, but it will probably be the standard closing sentences for this kind of document and won't amount to much.)
-
To summarise, the will had been proved by Ursula Consant, the widow, on 7 December 1633. The children of the testator Richard Consant – William, Richard and Dorothy – had then challenged the will’s validity (we are not told in what way).
In order to consolidate her position in the face of that challenge, Ursula had gone back to court to get confirmation of probate. She had been represented by her lawyer, but the other parties (the children) had not attended court to put their case, despite being duly summoned and given every opportunity to do so, and they were therefore in contempt of court.
In his Judicial Sentence the judge confirmed that, after considering the evidence and consulting with other legal experts, he had found the will to be valid in every way, Ursula’s appointment as executrix was lawful, Richard Consant had been of sound mind when he wrote the will, and any challenge to its validity was groundless.
The Judicial Sentence was copied into the wills register, in order to leave no room for any future doubts. Confirmation of probate was issued on 8 May 1634, in the presence of witnesses Benjamin Cobb and Henry Luffam.
(I think there should be more text, following after your extract labelled Latin9, but it will probably be the standard closing sentences for this kind of document and won't amount to much.)
Hi
Thanks for that info. I wonder why the children were challenging the Will's validity? They were all named, my only thought is perhaps they were told they were going to be left something which wasn't in the Will and wanted/expected more. It's a shame we don't get told why the Will was challenged.
Ursula remarried in 1634 to a man named Thomas Whitfied. It had occured to me that perhaps the children had challenged the Will because they felt they would loose out if she remarried.
What is the "Confirmation of Probate" about? Was that just confirming that the Will had been correctly proved originally?
I think the Henry "Luffman" who was a witness at the confirmation could well be Henry "Huffham" who had married Marie Consant in 1611.
I think it's these extra bits which make looking at Wills so fascinating.
There is a similar long Latin section so I wonder if that is the same sort of thing.
Thanks for your help with this.
Best Wishes
Matt
-
perhaps they were told they were going to be left something which wasn't in the Will and wanted/expected more. It's a shame we don't get told why the Will was challenged.
Ursula remarried in 1634 to a man named Thomas Whitfied. It had occured to me that perhaps the children had challenged the Will because they felt they would loose out if she remarried.
Either seems possible.
What is the "Confirmation of Probate" about? Was that just confirming that the Will had been correctly proved originally?
Yes, it was to show that a challenge to the will had been considered by the court but rebuffed, which theoretically would discourage anyone else from challenging.
I think the Henry "Luffman" who was a witness at the confirmation could well be Henry "Huffham" who had married Marie Consant in 1611.
You're right, it's written Huffam, now corrected above.
-
perhaps they were told they were going to be left something which wasn't in the Will and wanted/expected more. It's a shame we don't get told why the Will was challenged.
Ursula remarried in 1634 to a man named Thomas Whitfied. It had occured to me that perhaps the children had challenged the Will because they felt they would loose out if she remarried.
Either seems possible.
What is the "Confirmation of Probate" about? Was that just confirming that the Will had been correctly proved originally?
Yes, it was to show that a challenge to the will had been considered by the court but rebuffed, which theoretically would discourage anyone else from challenging.
I think the Henry "Luffman" who was a witness at the confirmation could well be Henry "Huffham" who had married Marie Consant in 1611.
You're right, it's written Huffam, now corrected above.
Thanks for that info. Henry Huffham/Hufham is mentioned in another Consant Will and I think he might be Richard's brother in law but I'd have to double check.
Many Thanks again for the help.
Matt
-
Henry Hufham/Huffam was married to Marie Constant [daughter of Nicholas and Elizabeth] in 1611. In his Will Nicholas mentions both Marie and Henry, and another daughter named Margaret who is referred to as "the wife of Vincent Twyman" along with his son "Richard Consant of Chislet". I think it's almost certain that this is the Richard whose Will we have been discussing as Henry Huffam would be his brother in law.
Interestingly Nicholas also mentions his son "William Constant of London" and describes William and Richard as his "oldest sons".
Matt