Martyn It was kind of you to look closely at the will and to provide such a very careful transcription. It is very satisfying to see it fill out. I have received one or two other contributions which agree very largely with your interpretation. When I have what I see as a concensus I will ask Judith to post it for all to see. I particularly appreciated the transcription of the Latin lines which I think I can interpret with my schoolboy Latin and a dictionary. Thank you very much for your help. Garth

Garth, I've given it my best shot and have tried my best to decipher the left hand side of the upper part (which is very feint). Any way I hope it is of some help. 1. In dei no[m]i[ne] amen the sixt day of Apr[i]le in the yere of o[u]r lord god MCCCCClix I W[illia]m Lenge 2. of nether catton husbandman being of p[er]fecte mynd & good remembrance do make 3. this my last will & testament as in forme followeth First I give & bequeth my soull to 4. almighty god to the blessed virgen marie and to all the celestiall company of heven & my 5. body to be buried in the p[ar]ishe churche yarde of catton It[em] I bequeth to the sacrament xijd 6. It[em] [? -----] to Ric[hard] lenge my son my fermfold It[em] to the said Ric[hard] my draughting 7. [? ----------] & all things belonging to them It[em] to the said Ric[hard] I give my cropp 8. of [? -----] of the ground & vj wand[es] of [? ynge] in wilberfosse fild It[em] I give to Jane leng 9. my daughter all my shepe [? ---] ? w---e & a counter my bed & on mattresse w[i]t[h] all thing[es] 10. belonging [? -----] It I give to Rob[er]t lenge one bushell of whete & on white headed 11. stott It[em] I give to Thomas nelis my best gray Jackett It[em] I give to Jenet my daughter 12. one bushell of whete It[em] I give to Alison sanderson one bushell of whete Item to 13. Agnis my daugghter one bushell of whete It[em] I give to the said Ric[hard] one cowe Item 14. I will that the said Jane my daughter shall shifte w[i]t[h] Ric[hard] all my good[es] w[i]t[h]in the house / the residewe 15. of my good[es] my debt[es] paid & my funeralls discharged I give to the said Ric[hard] whom I make my 16. executor of this my last will & testament This being recorders of the same will & testament Rob[er]t 17. clerke John Smeton John clerke & Thomas A[?-]eth clerke & Curate ther / Et xxij die ap[ri]lis 18. anno d[omi]ni Mccccclix probat[um] fuit hui[usm]o[d]i test[ament]u[m] iurat &c Com[m]issaq[ue] fuit ad 19. mi[ini]straco[em] bonor[um] Ric[hard]o filio soli Excut[or] no[m]i[n]ato iura[men]tp &c salvo iure cuiuscu[m]q[ue] All the best Martyn (West Sussex) ----- Original Message ---- From: garth swanson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 14 October, 2006 7:26:32 AM Subject: [OEL] A Yorks. will - 1559 - help please Hello Following my previous query about the apparently anomalous use of the name Pir, now resolved, I am posting the text of the full will with my best transcription at http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved41.html I must say a big thank you to Judith who helped in assembling and posting my scanned fragments in a thoroughly professional way. I would appreciate any comments and input that listers might have. Thank you in advance. Garth - Surrey ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Re http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved41.html Good show, Martyn. If I get to the Family History Library next week I'll look at the film to see if the faint portion is any more legible. In Line 6, however, I believe it's fermhold (farmhold) rather than fermfold. The 'draughting' item looks like it might be wain (Line 7), but I have to wonder why it would be described as a draughting wain (as opposed to what?), so it may be something else. I've been interested in the 'wandes of ynge' in Line 8, as that's what it appears to be. Oxford English Dictionary has wand as a measure of land (obsolete) and cites a 1596 example from a volume of Yorkshire deeds: [Two] wandes [of meadow] in the Northe Inges. So 'ynge' must be modern ing, about which OED says: A common name in the north of England, and in some other parts, for a meadow; esp. one by the side of a river and more or less swampy or subject to inundation. I'll have another look a little later. cheers, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ | I've given it my best shot and have tried my best to decipher the left hand side of the upper part (which is very feint). | | Any way I hope it is of some help. | | | 1. In dei no[m]i[ne] amen the sixt day of Apr[i]le in the yere of o[u]r lord god MCCCCClix I W[illia]m Lenge | | 2. of nether catton husbandman being of p[er]fecte mynd & good remembrance do make | | 3. this my last will & testament as in forme followeth First I give & bequeth my soull to | | 4. almighty god to the blessed virgen marie and to all the celestiall company of heven & my | | 5. body to be buried in the p[ar]ishe churche yarde of catton It[em] I bequeth to the sacrament xijd | | 6. It[em] [? -----] to Ric[hard] lenge my son my fermfold It[em] to the said Ric[hard] my draughting | | 7. [? ----------] & all things belonging to them It[em] to the said Ric[hard] I give my cropp | | 8. of [? -----] of the ground & vj wand[es] of [? ynge] in wilberfosse fild It[em] I give to Jane leng | | 9. my daughter all my shepe [? ---] ? w---e & a counter my bed & on mattresse w[i]t[h] all thing[es] | | 10. belonging [? -----] It I give to Rob[er]t lenge one bushell of whete & on white headed | | 11. stott It[em] I give to Thomas nelis my best gray Jackett It[em] I give to Jenet my daughter | | 12. one bushell of whete It[em] I give to Alison sanderson one bushell of whete Item to | | 13. Agnis my daugghter one bushell of whete It[em] I give to the said Ric[hard] one cowe Item | | 14. I will that the said Jane my daughter shall shifte w[i]t[h] Ric[hard] all my good[es] w[i]t[h]in the house / the residewe | | 15. of my good[es] my debt[es] paid & my funeralls discharged I give to the said Ric[hard] whom I make my | | 16. executor of this my last will & testament This being recorders of the same will & testament Rob[er]t | | 17. clerke John Smeton John clerke & Thomas A[?-]eth clerke & Curate ther / Et xxij die ap[ri]lis | | 18. anno d[omi]ni Mccccclix probat[um] fuit hui[usm]o[d]i test[ament]u[m] iurat &c Com[m]issaq[ue] fuit ad | | 19. mi[ini]straco[em] bonor[um] Ric[hard]o filio soli Excut[or] no[m]i[n]ato iura[men]tp &c salvo iure cuiuscu[m]q[ue]

Hello Following my previous query about the apparently anomalous use of the name Pir, now resolved, I am posting the text of the full will with my best transcription at http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved41.html I must say a big thank you to Judith who helped in assembling and posting my scanned fragments in a thoroughly professional way. I would appreciate any comments and input that listers might have. Thank you in advance. Garth - Surrey

In message <[email protected]>, Norman Lee <[email protected]> writes >Would it not be to make sure that he was considered before any offspring of >his dead brothers, i.e. if his dead elder brother's children may have been >on the list of heirs. X is making sure that his claim as next heir is >recognised before any grandchildren produced by his brothers. In that case, he would not be heir at law. It would have been rash to claim when there were obvious alternatives. He could have tried 'edlest surviving son' but this would have done him not good at all if their were male heirs of an older sibling. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <[email protected]>, Robert Hillier <[email protected]> writes >Dear Legal Eagles , >Am I correct in thinking that , in English law as it applied in 1841, the >claim by X "I am the only son and heir at law of Y " is legally compatible >with the previous existence of brothers of X , sons of Y , who are now all >dead ? I.e., am I correct that X is not necessarily claiming that Y never >had any other sons ? He is stating the current legal position, not the state of things as it was. Never confuse lawyers by giving them too much information. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Would it not be to make sure that he was considered before any offspring of his dead brothers, i.e. if his dead elder brother's children may have been on the list of heirs. X is making sure that his claim as next heir is recognised before any grandchildren produced by his brothers. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hillier" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:05 AM Subject: [OEL] Only son and heir at law > Dear Legal Eagles , > Am I correct in thinking that , in English law as it applied in 1841, the > claim by X "I am the only son and heir at law of Y " is legally > compatible > with the previous existence of brothers of X , sons of Y , who are now all > dead ? I.e., am I correct that X is not necessarily claiming that Y never > had any other sons ? > TIA, > Robert Hillier, > Poole, > Dorset > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/470 - Release Date: 10/10/2006 > >

Good Morning - Claiming only that he was the only 'legal' son & heir 'at law', although he could have had others outside the law I suppose? Don't know the law at that time though? Kind Regards Roy LD Cox Family Historian Member of SA&NHS Member No. 1066 (And all That!) Web Site: www.coxresearcher.com/index.htm I also use www.archivecdbooks.com and www.localhistory.co.uk/ambra for my research -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Hillier Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [OEL] Only son and heir at law Dear Legal Eagles , Am I correct in thinking that , in English law as it applied in 1841, the claim by X "I am the only son and heir at law of Y " is legally compatible with the previous existence of brothers of X , sons of Y , who are now all dead ? I.e., am I correct that X is not necessarily claiming that Y never had any other sons ? TIA, Robert Hillier, Poole, Dorset ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 12/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.3/473 - Release Date: 12/10/2006

Hi Robert You are correct in that one could not assume from this statement that there had not been other sons who had died, although in that case I would expect him to have declared that he was the "only surviving son of". So not that much help! Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hillier" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:05 AM Subject: [OEL] Only son and heir at law Dear Legal Eagles , Am I correct in thinking that , in English law as it applied in 1841, the claim by X "I am the only son and heir at law of Y " is legally compatible with the previous existence of brothers of X , sons of Y , who are now all dead ? I.e., am I correct that X is not necessarily claiming that Y never had any other sons ? TIA, Robert Hillier, Poole, Dorset ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Legal Eagles , Am I correct in thinking that , in English law as it applied in 1841, the claim by X "I am the only son and heir at law of Y " is legally compatible with the previous existence of brothers of X , sons of Y , who are now all dead ? I.e., am I correct that X is not necessarily claiming that Y never had any other sons ? TIA, Robert Hillier, Poole, Dorset

Hi Garth - Copuld the word be PER and not PIR? garth swanson <[email protected]> wrote: This is my first encounter with your list, I hope this question is not a trivial one. I have been transcribing a Yorkshire will written in 1559 which was proved by the Prerogative Court of York. It is written in secretary hand and there is frequent use of the word Pir to denote a person. In one case it is followed directly by "my son" e.g. Pir my son. In another place it is qualified by "my daughter". In other places it reads "the said Pir". At other places in the will a daughter is specifically named and other people are referred to by their names. Pir appears to be an abbreviation. I realise that the capital P itself is used as an abbreviation with decoration to distinguish meanings. However I have not been able to distinguish between the letter P that has been used when referring to daughter and son. Can anyone please help? Garth ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Kind Regards Roy LD Cox www.coxresearcher.com/index.htm

This is my first encounter with your list, I hope this question is not a trivial one. I have been transcribing a Yorkshire will written in 1559 which was proved by the Prerogative Court of York. It is written in secretary hand and there is frequent use of the word Pir to denote a person. In one case it is followed directly by "my son" e.g. Pir my son. In another place it is qualified by "my daughter". In other places it reads "the said Pir". At other places in the will a daughter is specifically named and other people are referred to by their names. Pir appears to be an abbreviation. I realise that the capital P itself is used as an abbreviation with decoration to distinguish meanings. However I have not been able to distinguish between the letter P that has been used when referring to daughter and son. Can anyone please help? Garth

Hi Audrey, I can't help with numbers but I've had a quick look in The London Encyclopaedia, Weinreb & Hibbert, for information on Bethnal Green. "The urban invasion from the south-western corner began towards the end of the seventeenth century with the spread of the silk-weaving industry from Spitalfields. In 1743, when Bethnal Green became a separate parish from Stepney, "it was claimed that the 'hamlet contains above eighteen hundred houses, and is computed to have more than fifteen thousand inhabitants ...consisting chiefly of weavers, dyers and other dependents ... crowded into narrow streets and courts ... three or four families in a house. In 1777 John Wesley recorded in his Journal, 'I began visiting those of our Society who lived in Bethnal Green. Many of these I found in such poverty as few can conceive without seeing it.' By 1840 it was estimated that six times as many looms were employed in Bethnal Green as in the former weaving centres of Spitalfields and Mile End New Town. The decline of the industry at this time aggravated distress in the area, although other industries soon developed in its place. These were also based on the home and small workshop, and included furniture, clothes and boot and shoe manufacture." So there is nothing specific to 1801 but it givews a bit of an insight into the few decades before and after. I couldn't see any specific Phillimore publications on Bethnal Green - a pity because the several local histories I have purchased from them have been fascinating and provide excellent background to "ancestral life". Perhaps a library would be some help. Cheers, Liz in Melbourne > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:old-english- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Norman Lee > Sent: Saturday, 7 October 2006 6:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OEL] mariners > > Dear Listers > > Does anyone have, at their finger-tips, the percentage of different > occupations of Londoners (including those living in what is now Greater > London) in the 18/19th and early years of the 20th centuries. My reason > for asking this is that I am looking at my father's family who, for the > most part, came from the East End. I have got to the point where I am > going to have to begin to look at my 4 x great grandfather who lived in > Bethnal Green in 1801. I think that it's most likely that he would have > been involved in shipping of some sort as were all the rest of that line, > bar one. The exception has a fascinating story to tell but, in order to > compare him to his father and his only son, I would like to have some idea > of how their neighbours might have earned their livings. > > Audrey >

Dear Gay Thank you very much for all these sites. I shall indeed visit them. Besides working on tugs, several of my forebears worked in the docks and my great, great grandparents lived in Dock Cottages which was a row of houses right up against the dock wall of the East India Docks. They were for dock workers to live in with the idea that they could be first on the scene if a fire broke out in any part of the docks. My dad actually saw these cottages before they were finally pulled down and said that they were "funny little houses". They were so badly built when first erected that they had to be pulled down and rebuilt. Have you visited the Docklands Museum? That is a fascinating place and you can reuse your entrance ticket as many times as you wish over a whole year. Believe me, if you are near enough and able, it is a very good deal as one visit cannot possibly be enough to do justice to all the exhibits and information displayed. I only wish I lived nearer and could have taken advantage of my ticket by repeat visits. Thank you for your help. I shall keep the list posted as to any solution I may find. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] mariners > Hello Audrey, > > there's an excellent website all about the history of London as a PORT > CITY: > > http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/nav.001 > > In addition, the Royal Naval Maritime Museum at Greenwich: > > http://www.greenwichfoundation.org.uk/ > > Plus information about the Royal Naval Dockyards at Deptford: > > http://www.port.nmm.ac.uk/research/b5.html > > There is also a wonderful website about Victorian London, rather later > than > 1801, but still good: > > http://www.victorianlondon.org/ > > > Have Fun! > > GAY > > > > > Gay J Oliver, Stalybridge, Cheshire > www.members.aol.com/victoroly/genealogy.htm > www.members.aol.com/gayjoliver/Tameside.htm > www.fhsc.org.uk/fhsc/dukinfield.htm > www.tamesidehistoryforum.org.uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: > 03/10/2006 > >

Dear Listers Does anyone have, at their finger-tips, the percentage of different occupations of Londoners (including those living in what is now Greater London) in the 18/19th and early years of the 20th centuries. My reason for asking this is that I am looking at my father's family who, for the most part, came from the East End. I have got to the point where I am going to have to begin to look at my 4 x great grandfather who lived in Bethnal Green in 1801. I think that it's most likely that he would have been involved in shipping of some sort as were all the rest of that line, bar one. The exception has a fascinating story to tell but, in order to compare him to his father and his only son, I would like to have some idea of how their neighbours might have earned their livings. Audrey

Hello Audrey, there's an excellent website all about the history of London as a PORT CITY: http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/nav.001 In addition, the Royal Naval Maritime Museum at Greenwich: http://www.greenwichfoundation.org.uk/ Plus information about the Royal Naval Dockyards at Deptford: http://www.port.nmm.ac.uk/research/b5.html There is also a wonderful website about Victorian London, rather later than 1801, but still good: http://www.victorianlondon.org/ Have Fun! GAY Gay J Oliver, Stalybridge, Cheshire www.members.aol.com/victoroly/genealogy.htm www.members.aol.com/gayjoliver/Tameside.htm www.fhsc.org.uk/fhsc/dukinfield.htm www.tamesidehistoryforum.org.uk

Sorry I have to do this but my mail keeps coming back: Eusebeia, if you are still on this list, can you please e-mail me with your current address? Thanks, Art Lengkeek

When we hear someone remark with pride that they are descended from, say, Henry VIII, the appropriate response should be laughter. For whites at least, it would be very unusual NOT to have an enormous array of royalty and Barons, Bishops, etc in the direct ancestry. The only difficulty is finding a path to them among so many other paths. To take an example, (genealogy being a hobby I sometimes dabble in) - I located on net a reliable sourced, very large, tree which contained my wife's 12th greatgrandmother (Ursula Tyndale, bn 1510). From her, it was comparatively easy to establish that her (my wife's) first cousin 28 times removed was Macbeth, who killed her 26th great grandfather, Duncan I King of Scotland, in battle (not in bed, as Shakespeare fictionalised the story) in 1040. Such 'finds' are rather like being surprised that a monkey, tapping at random on a typewriter forever, should type out a Shakespeare sonnet. When you see the rest of what it typed, you are not at all surprised. Theoretically, we each have around 268 million direct ancestors alive in 1100 AD, and 536 million from then till now. Whereas the world population in 1100 was about 300 million. Not only do we share each others' ancestors, we share our own. It is quite usual that a set of parents may appear in a tree in say the 20th and 24th generation. Large royal families and plural marriages add to the likelihood. The rate at which large, well-researched trees are being added to "Rootsweb","Ancestry World Tree", "One World Tree" etc, and "Genes United" and DNB based sites, is ushering in an age of freely available genealogy very fast. John Barton

Bet they still can't find my Catherine Stace's birth and marriage to Richard Hawkes! Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:17 PM Subject: [OEL] Genealogy > When we hear someone remark with pride that they are descended from, say, > Henry VIII, the appropriate response should be laughter. For whites at > least, it would be very unusual NOT to have an enormous array of royalty > and Barons, Bishops, etc in the direct ancestry. The only difficulty is > finding a path to them among so many other paths. > To take an example, (genealogy being a hobby I sometimes dabble in) - I > located on net a reliable sourced, very large, tree which contained my > wife's 12th greatgrandmother (Ursula Tyndale, bn 1510). From her, it was > comparatively easy to establish that her (my wife's) first cousin 28 times > removed was Macbeth, who killed her 26th great grandfather, Duncan I King > of Scotland, in battle (not in bed, as Shakespeare fictionalised the > story) in 1040. > Such 'finds' are rather like being surprised that a monkey, tapping at > random on a typewriter forever, should type out a Shakespeare sonnet. When > you see the rest of what it typed, you are not at all surprised. > Theoretically, we each have around 268 million direct ancestors alive in > 1100 AD, and 536 million from then till now. Whereas the world population > in 1100 was about 300 million. Not only do we share each others' > ancestors, we share our own. It is quite usual that a set of parents may > appear in a tree in say the 20th and 24th generation. Large royal families > and plural marriages add to the likelihood. The rate at which large, > well-researched trees are being added to "Rootsweb","Ancestry World Tree", > "One World Tree" etc, and "Genes United" and DNB based sites, is ushering > in an age of freely available genealogy very fast. > > John Barton > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/451 - Release Date: 19/09/2006 > >

Dear Audrey, Would it be a fear of being buried alive? Therefore 8 days to make sure I am really dead? regards Lyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Unsolved 1787 Will of John Rothery > Dear List > > I am interested to see Will's transcription of a problem on the unsolved > page. I have to confess not to having looked at this but, taking his > reading > as correct, the main puzzlement for me is the delay in burying the body. I > understood that the first obligation of the executor(s) was to bury the > body > of the deceased after which came payment of debts to the crown and the > lord > of the manor followed by other debts of varying categories. Of course, > this > doesn't sit very comfortably with the practice of lying in state for some > important deceased people and maybe this person was one such, whose body > was > required by others to lie in state? > > Can anyone suggest how this request should be reconciled with burial > customs? > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Johnson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 4:21 PM > Subject: [OEL] Unsolved 1787 Will of John Rothery > > >> I'm not sure if this has been solved yet, but the unknown words are >> simply: >> >> "that I may be buried on the eighth day after my decease" >> >> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/unsolved39.html >> >> Will >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/451 - Release Date: >> 19/09/2006 >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message