Latin on 1711 document

[Richard Knott]

This low definition document accompanied the 1711 will for Mary Costen on Ancestry where the main beneficiary was a minor, Mary Wild.

This is signed by her father, William Wild, and her uncle, Thomas Costen. The only reference I have to Thomas' profession is in 1721 when he was described as a schoolmaster in Woking, although I know his father was a yeoman.

I think this refers to both Woking (Okeing) and to Thomas being a yeoman/farmer (agricolam), but I'm wondering whether any of the words I can't read say anything more.

Now to reconcile his being a farmer and schoolmaster...

Richard

[Richard Knott]

If it helps, this was also attached; but I think it only refers to Mary Wild (the minor), her father and the testator.
R

[horselydown86]

...I'm wondering whether any of the words I can't read say anything more.

To the best of my ability, given the poor quality:

...et Thomam Costen paroc' de Okeing in Com(itatu) [Surr? / Surry?]
Agricolam...

He isn't mentioned elsewhere.

ADDED:

The second document does mention:

...Mariae Costen nuper par(o)c(h)ae St.
Nicholas in Guildford in Com Surriae Viduae...

I'm not sure whether it says this Mary Costen is herself deceased or the widow of the deceased.

[Bookbox]

The people being bound are William Wild of the parish of Twickenham, Middlesex, farmer, and Thomas Costen of the parish of Okeing, Surrey, farmer. Dated 4 January 17[??]. The rest is common form.

The larger document relates to the granting of letters of administration (with the will annexed) for the estate of Mary Costen, widow, of St Nicholas, Guildford. The grant is made to William Wilde, the natural and lawful father of Mary Wilde and the person charged with her care. Mary is the granddaughter of the deceased. Administration is granted to William for the use and benefit of Mary Wilde during her minority, because she is the principal legatee, and no executor was named in the will. Mary is aged between 7 and 21 years. The estate does not exceed £40. Dated 4 January 1710/11.

[Richard Knott]

Thanks very much for the replies and translations.

As I suspected there is very little there that didn't appear in the will, although I didn't know that Mary was older than seven or that William Wild lived in Twickenham at the time. It's possible that may turn out to be useful. It's all grist to the mill.

As to why a farmer should become a schoolmaster is beyond me.

Richard

[Old Bristolian]

Schoolmasters at this time may have had other occupations. I have an ancestor who was a yeoman farmer, vestry clerk, schoolmaster and 'lead reeve' in a mining area; he held several of these  posts concurrently. This was in the second half of the 18th century,

Steve

[Richard Knott]

Thanks for replying. That seems the logical position, although he clearly changed what he thought to be his major occupation.
Richard

[Maiden Stone]

Schoolmasters at this time may have had other occupations. I have an ancestor who was a yeoman farmer, vestry clerk, schoolmaster and 'lead reeve' in a mining area; he held several of these  posts concurrently. This was in the second half of the 18th century,

A line of my yeomen ancestors were butchers and innkeepers during 18th century. They lived in a small coastal town, off the beaten track. Neither butchering or innkeeping alone provided sufficient income until a new stagecoach route and then seaside holidays made the inn very profitable. Occupation on documents was variously butcher, innkeeper, butcher & innkeeper, landlord, yeoman. They were yeomen because their inn had land attached and they could pass the lease on to their heirs. A lease for 3 lives was the norm.
Another branch of the same family were yeoman farmers. They lived on the edge of town. Occupation recorded was sometimes husbandman, sometimes yeoman.  My 3xGGF was the result of a marriage between the 2 branches.
Circumstances may have changed for your yeoman farmer, perhaps his health or profitability of his farm.