Author Topic: What is all this Latin about?  (Read 2053 times)

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,747
    • View Profile
Re: What is all this Latin about?
« Reply #18 on: Tuesday 30 October 18 18:02 GMT (UK) »
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


Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,896
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is all this Latin about?
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday 31 October 18 19:43 GMT (UK) »
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.)

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,747
    • View Profile
Re: What is all this Latin about?
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday 31 October 18 22:07 GMT (UK) »
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

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,896
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is all this Latin about?
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday 31 October 18 22:19 GMT (UK) »
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.


Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,747
    • View Profile
Re: What is all this Latin about?
« Reply #22 on: Thursday 01 November 18 00:03 GMT (UK) »
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

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,747
    • View Profile
Re: What is all this Latin about?
« Reply #23 on: Friday 02 November 18 00:45 GMT (UK) »
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