I`ve had a look again on Anc , and there are two versions of the will. Both have the same reference number.
Why would this be.
As you say, there are two copies of the will in this PCC Register, one on folios 107-108, the other on folios 303-304. The copy on folios 107-108 is annotated, top right:
Concordat cum ori(gina)li Testam(en)to
Thomae Wilcoxon collac(i)one
fac(ta) per Tho: Southwood(?)
Not: pub:
3
o Martij 1660 ( ... ?)
Recepi testam(en)tum ori(gina)le de
Regis(tro) hujus curiae.
Pet: Leadbeater
Teste Tho: Southwood(?)
============
(This) agrees with the original will of Thomas Wilcoxon, collation having been made by Thomas Southwood(?), Notary Public
3 March 1660/61 ( ...?)
I received the original will from the Registry of this court
<signed> Peter Leadbeater
Witness -- Thomas Southwood(?)
============
Here’s a possible scenario.
The original will was proved in the PCC on 17 October 1660 by the executor, Peter Leadbeater. It was then copied out and entered into the court register as normal (folios 107-108), and the original will was filed away in the registry. Later, the executor asked to have the original back for some reason. Before he was allowed to take it away, the register copy was double-checked against it and authenticated by the notary public, and the executor signed to say that he had received the original from the registry (3 March 1660/61).
When the executor returned the original will to the registry, it was copied out and entered again into the register (folios 303-304).
It’s only a theory, and others may have better ideas.
You would expect the two register copies to be identical, except for minor variations in abbreviations and contractions, as used by two different clerks. That is probably how the Mr/Master discrepancy has arisen. It originally meant the same – ‘Mr’ is just a contraction of the word ‘Master’.