Thank you so much all of you!!!
This is so wonderful!
Thank you, Bookbox and goldie and horselydown86, that is amazing, thank you!
You have just solved a mystery that has remained unsolved for 500 years, give or take
Of course I will correct it, goldie, thank you so much to you and Bookbox and horselydown86 again! I am completely in awe of how you do this! All I see when I look at these documents, desperately trying to understand, is squiggly line, squiggly line, bare discernable word, Ooh, I managed a complete sentence!!!, That must mean I have cracked the code! ... No.
Alright, then we definitely know that their sons were called Henry, Edward, Thomas and John. Since they are listed in that order and we know that Henry was the eldest and John the fourth, I think it is safe to assume that Edward was the second and Thomas was the third son!
Thank goodness the testator is going through this in an orderly fashion. It is precisely what I had been hoping for.
And how kind of him to secure so much help for his widow! And such a clever way of going about it, too.
(I thought I might include some links to what I have been talking about above, just in case it is of interest to anybody reading this thread
Elizabeth Grey, Lady Audley, by Hans Holbein the Youngerhttps://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/422292/elizabeth-lady-audley-1564This is the book I was talking about:
Testamenta Vetustahttps://archive.org/stream/testamentavetus01nicogoog#page/n273/search/DorsetThe incorrect version of our will is on pages 652-653. It was probably also supposed to be on pages 650-651, but those pages aren't there. Instead it is melded together with the previous will on pages 647-649. Of course this mistake might have occurred in scanning, but it really has lead to a host of strange mistakes! As I mentioned above, I read somewhere that will was written on a certain date in 1521. The 1521 is probably a misreading of the '21 Henry VIII' in the previous will, i.e. 21 years into Henry VIII's reign. 1509 + 21 = 1530.
And also that Thomas Grey first wanted to be buried wherever it was convenient, 'My body to be buried where it shall please God to dispose of it', that is to say wherever he happened to die (
very uncommon among the higher classes), but that he then wanted to be dug up again and be buried next to his father(!). Now, reinterrals did happen, but usually at the initiative of the descendants precisely because the ancestor had not been put in the appropriate place in the first place. One could perhaps have understood it if he were about to die somewhere where it would have been very inconvenient to transport the body from, but it undeniably sounded a bit strange
Of course, printing and scanning mistakes can happen. However, the entire translation is riddled with grievous and inexplicable mistakes!
Even as little as I understand of the original document, even I can see that, especially with your kind help here.
The footnote actually states that they have a son Leonard, and omits any mention of an Edward, when, as we can we see, it is in actuality the completely opposite.
The next footnote states that Mary was his natural daughter, when nothing I have read so far nor the will itself indicate this. But we will get to that in good time, I guess
It is possible the author has conflated her with another Mary in another will earlier in the book, that of Elizabeth, Lady Scrope, in 1518. '[T]o Mary, daughter in base unto Thomas Grey, Maquess of Dorset, my bed that my Lord Marquess was wont to lie in.'
That Mary was probably the daughter of Thomas Grey,
1st Marquis of Dorset, however, not the 2nd. He had a bit of reputation for such things. From Susan Higginbotham's article here:
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/thomas-grey-marquis-of-dorset-elizabeth-woodvilles-oldest-son/ 'Dorset and Hastings had a “deadly feud” based on the mistresses they had attempted to steal from each other.' This feud would have deadly consequences also for parties not involved in the actual affairs.
Besides, Lady Scrope speaks of him as if he has already passed, which would be correct for the 1st, but not 2nd, Marquis of Dorset in 1518.
Besides, another puzzling footnote is based on a puzzling section of the will, a section I refuse to believe is correctly translated. That section of the will states that: 'I will that the marriage which hath been solemnized between my daughter Anne and Henry Willoughby, Esquire, son and heir-apparent of Sir Edward Willoughby, Knt. be dissolved.'
I refuse to believe that this is correct. One, the marriage took place, they would have at least three children together, secondly, why in the world would he write that in a will when he presumably not only was the one who had arranged the marriage in the first place, but he could dissolve it far easier in life?
Of course I might yet be proved wrong on that score
I am beginning to understand why are always encouraged to go look at the original sources, lol.)
Thank you so much again! You are wonderful, all of you
