Author Topic: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby  (Read 326 times)

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #18 on: Friday 16 November 18 15:53 GMT (UK) »
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

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #19 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:07 GMT (UK) »
For William, my readings of the individual amounts are exactly the same as HDís.

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.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline MrDudley

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Dudley Quartering Bent, as per 1672.
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #20 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:09 GMT (UK) »
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
Dudley of Cosby, Odstone and Swepstone, Leicestershire.
Richard Dudley, Gent 1681-1746. Son of Richard Dudley, Gent 1655-1710. Son of Henry Dudley, Esq 1620-1688.  Son of Thomas Dudley, Gent & Vintner 1589-1660. Member of the Worshipful Company of Vintners.

Bent of Cosby & Littlethorpe, Leicestershire.
George Bent, Gent of Cosby 1620-1693. Grt Grt Grandson of Thomas Bent, Esq of Cosby Manor 1514-1555
John Bent, Labourer of Cosby 1701-1765. 4th Grt Grandson of Thomas Bent, Esq of Cosby Manor.

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #21 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:13 GMT (UK) »
The inventories don't take account of real estate, just personal estate.

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #22 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:15 GMT (UK) »
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.

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #23 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:18 GMT (UK) »
58 li 14 s 4 d

Yes, agreed. (I forgot to carry 2  :-[)

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #24 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:32 GMT (UK) »
Looking at FindMyPast, two more totals on the back of the inventory ...

Offline MrDudley

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Dudley Quartering Bent, as per 1672.
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #25 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:34 GMT (UK) »
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.
Dudley of Cosby, Odstone and Swepstone, Leicestershire.
Richard Dudley, Gent 1681-1746. Son of Richard Dudley, Gent 1655-1710. Son of Henry Dudley, Esq 1620-1688.  Son of Thomas Dudley, Gent & Vintner 1589-1660. Member of the Worshipful Company of Vintners.

Bent of Cosby & Littlethorpe, Leicestershire.
George Bent, Gent of Cosby 1620-1693. Grt Grt Grandson of Thomas Bent, Esq of Cosby Manor 1514-1555
John Bent, Labourer of Cosby 1701-1765. 4th Grt Grandson of Thomas Bent, Esq of Cosby Manor.

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #26 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:41 GMT (UK) »
It's on the back of Williamís 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, Iím uncertain of the figures that follow.