RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Taylor94 on Friday 16 November 18 13:56 GMT (UK)
-
Hello
I'm having trouble understanding the worth of 2 inventories as I cant read this script.
One is for Thomas Bent, Gent who was Lord of the Manor of Cosby in the 1550s. He dies 1555, I'm not sure where the sum total of his inventory is wrote. I've attached below.
Secondly, Is the Inventory sum of his father William Bent, Gent. He dies 1539, and as with Thomas I'm not sure where the sum total is or indeed what it says. I've also attached the top part of William's will as he had been transcribed as 'William Bent of Cosby Holl' is this actually 'Cosby Hall' or is it 'William Bent of Cosby Gent'
In Subsidy Rolls, William is appraised as highly as most Squires in the County and is of the rank of 'Gentleman'
I've attached a snippet from the bottom of the Inventories where I think the sum is wrote but I can try and snip other bits as needed. The Wills/Inventories are also on FindMyPast.
-
Any clearer?
.
.
.
-
First, it is definitely: ...off cosby holl
In relation to Thomas, it's messy but:
Sum(me) [?nn] score ^& xij^ poundes [an amount of shillings crossed out] iiijs xd
all thynges dyscharged
The second word needs more thought.
In relation to William:
Sum(ma) totalis clxx li ij s viijd
p(ra)syd by john p(ar)ke will(ia)m Ransu(m) Rog(er) [neyse?]
Ryc(hard) hefford de cosby
ADDED:
I now think the second "word" for Thomas is a dash then a number: - iiij
So for Thomas, four score and twelve pounds, four shillings and ten pence.
For William, one hundred and seventy pounds, two shillings and eight pence.
-
In relation to Thomas, it's messy but:
Sum(me) [?nn] score ^& xij^ poundes ...
The second word needs more thought.
Could that bit perhaps be ...
Sum(m)a – iiij score ^& xij^ poundes (= 4 score & 12 = 92 pounds) ?
ADDED - sorry, HD, didn't see your addition in time.
-
ADDED - sorry, HD, didn't see your addition in time.
No problem - great minds etc.
-
HD, I'm not sure about William. The figure for pounds looks like xlxx, which doesn't make numerical sense. Or are you reading that first symbol as C ?
-
I think the apparent tail belongs to the R on the next line, and it's one of those "backwards" c's used in the C16th.
-
Thank you ever so much for both of your help. I couldn't for the life of me read this.
Cosby Holl is interesting as I thought it could be 'Cosby Hall' but son Thomas didn't purchase this until 1551 along with 805 acres of land and various other Messuages.
On further looking, I believe this has been mistranscribed and the 'Holl' isn't a location. I think it actually reads 'William Bent of Cosby, Holl in mynde' (Whole in Mind) etc etc
-
An example of a backwards c from 1594.
-
On further looking, I believe this has been mistranscribed and the 'Holl' isn't a location. I think it actually reads 'William Bent of Cosby, Holl in mynde' (Whole in Mind) etc etc
It could do. We would need to see more of the text to comment, of course.
-
An example of a backwards c from 1594.
Thanks for that, but I'm not wholly convinced. If the apparent tail is attached to the R in the line below, as you suggest, I note that the initial letters R of Rog' and of Ryc' don't have such tails.
I do wonder if he wrote x and then attempted to erase it?
Perhaps the OP needs to roughly add up the inventory, just to get a 'ballpark' result?
-
This is the line :)
-
Didn't mean to post 2 Copies.
-
Yes MrD, I agree with your reading:
...off cosby holl In mynd and w(i)t(h) a p(er)fett...
To confirm the total of the inventory - as per Bookbox's suggestion - can you add the individual amounts (or post images of the amounts)?
-
An example of a backwards c from 1594.
Perhaps the OP needs to roughly add up the inventory, just to get a 'ballpark' result?
I would gladly add up the inventory but I unfortunately cannot read this number script.
-
Yes, Ill try and snip the amounts of Williams inventory.
-
This is the Full Inventory of William Bent 1539
-
Inventory Totals of Thomas Bent 1555
-
Leaving the pence aside, I think William's total is 38 pounds + 405 shillings = 58.25 pounds.
So Bookbox was right to be cautious. It's definitely not one hundred and seventy pounds.
Closer to seventy pounds.
My apologies proffered to MrDudley.
ADDED:
The working (disregarding pence) is:
20 s
6 s 8 d
20 s
21 s 4 d
8 s
40 s
7 marks = 7 x (13 s 4 d)
7 nobles = 7 x (8 s 4 d)
30 pounds
10 marks = 10 x (13 s 4 d)
8 pounds
13 s 4 d
= 38 pounds + 405 s
-
For William, my readings of the individual amounts are exactly the same as HD’s.
Including the pence, and calculating 1 mark at 13 shillings 4 pence, and 1 noble at 8 shillings 4 pence, I get a total of 56 pounds 14 shillings 4 pence. The difference between that and HD's total is probably accounted for by my faulty maths. Nevertheless, I'm still uncertain exactly what is written.
-
Thank you very much for that. I was wondering why William had a bigger inventory wealth than Thomas until the total was corrected.
Considering the research on the Bent family of Cosby put William as a Small Landowner. Where as When Thomas died in 1555 he was in the possession Cosby Manor and had a 1,221 acre Estate across Cosby and Littlethorpe along with other Messuages/Houses/Orchards etc
-
The inventories don't take account of real estate, just personal estate.
-
While you were posting I also did the pence as follows:
112 d = 9 s 4 d
(58 li 5 s) + (9 s 4 d) = 58 li 14 s 4 d
Still doesn't add up.
-
58 li 14 s 4 d
Yes, agreed. (I forgot to carry 2 :-[)
-
Looking at FindMyPast, two more totals on the back of the inventory ...
-
Was that on Thomas's or William's? I hadn't noticed that, I went through the pages but must have missed it or didn't realise it was totals.
-
It's on the back of William’s inventory.
S(u)m(ma) totalis istius Inve(n)tarij ... (= total sum of that Inventory ...)
Deduct(is) debit(is) et funeralib(us) restat clare ... (= after deducting debts and funeral costs, the cleared residue ...)
Again, I’m uncertain of the figures that follow.
-
I see the second amount as this:
xxvjli xiiijs viijd
A very tentative stab at the first amount:
lxvijli xiiijs ?
-
These readings look good, but still puzzling. And apparently a large chunk of the personal estate lost to debts and funeral expenses.
-
I have done a calculation on Thomas's amounts as listed in the image.
20 s
53 s 4 d
40 s
53 s 4 d
13 s 4 d
20 s
14 li
15 li
18 li
13 s 4 d
6 s 8 d
5 li
10 li
30 s
40 s
5 s
15 li
50 s
40 s
20 s
40 s
= 77 li 443 s 24 d
= 99 li 5 s 0 d
We can't see the descriptions, so have to assume that everything in the list is a positive amount.
Presumably the difference is due to subtraction from this gross amount of the noted all thynges dyscharged.