I refer to the information posted by Steve relating to Bewley. What in present day English does it all mean? Why is money paid "unto the Lord Bishop"? Is the sum mentioned the total of the intestate estate? How is the estate to be disbursed - is it up to the administrator? Sorry about these naive questions but I have a similar document and do not fully understand the process. Could someone please explain Ivan Gregory

Ivan Gregory wrote: >What in present day English does it all mean? Why is money paid >"unto the Lord Bishop"? Is the sum mentioned the total of the >intestate estate? How is the estate to be disbursed - is it up >to the administrator? This was in reference to a probate [administration] bond that was posted on the CUL list. I'll explain briefly my understanding of how to read such a bond, but Neville is the expert - and maybe he could say if I've got it wrong or could add any details. The ecclesiastical probate court had to ensure that the estate was administered in a proper way. This was done by appointing administrators and guarantors, defining what they had to do, and threatening them with a penalty if they didn't do it. I'll use the probate of Edward WILSON of Frizington (1677) to illustrate. There are two bonds attached to this probate. Each is printed in a standard format but with specifics added by hand. The first handwritten insert on the top line names the people who are guaranteeing that the bond's instructions are carried out [guarantors or bondsmen]. The names in early bonds were usually written in Latin. " Margarita Wilson de Frizington & Thomam Wood de Kidburngill in parochia de Arlecdon & Johannes Nicholson in parochia de Cleator " [i.e. Margaret Wilson of Frizington & Thomas Wood of Kidburngill in the parish of Arlecdon & John Nicholson in the parish of Cleator] Quite often their social status will be stated here (typically, yeo omnes de Arlecdon = 'all yeomen of Arlecdon'] Then, printed bla bla. Then an insert of money (sometimes in Latin, sometimes in numerals): "ducentis libris" [i.e. £200] [the separate inventory had valued the estate (not including land) at about £80]. This was how much the guarantors had to pay as a penalty to the bishop IF the bond wasn't carried out. This was normally fixed at about double the value of the non-real estate. This money wasn't paid up front - it was only paid as a penalty IF things went wrong. then an insert of the date: "primo die Mensis Octobris Anno Dom. 1677" [i.e. first day of October AD 1677] Then, printed bla bla bla. Then the name of the Administrator [the person who would actually carry out the instructions, one of the already mentioned guarantors - typically the widow, son or daughter of the deceased), usually written in English: "Margaret Wilson" Then, printed bla bla bla. Then, for a standard bond, the name of the deceased, usually written in English: "Edward Wilson her late husband" Then, bla bla bla containing the standard instructions for what the Administrator had to do. In this case, the first bond required Margaret to carry out the terms of the will and to make an inventory of the estate. The second bond made provision for the children who were minors. So, instead of the deceased's name only, you have: Edward & Elizabeth Wilson natural and lawful children of Edward Wilson late of Arlecdon. And at the bottom the signatures or marks of the Administrator(s) and guarantors. Hope that helps Chris chris@dickinson.uk.net

Excellent explanation, Chris. I have the one you found for me and I guess you explained it to me then. But I really think that the Lord Bishop was into *usury* way before the term was popular.....grin. It threw me at first when I saw the huge amounts for the Bishop, and the small worth of the estates. But I am sure the estates were wound up a lot faster than they are nowadays. Cheers......Heather > > This was in reference to a probate [administration] bond that > was posted on the CUL list. > > I'll explain briefly my understanding of how to read such a bond, > but Neville is the expert - and maybe he could say if I've got it > wrong or could add any details. > > The ecclesiastical probate court had to ensure that the estate > was administered in a proper way. This was done by appointing > administrators and guarantors, defining what they had to do, and > threatening them with a penalty if they didn't do it.