Hi Ian I would *think* (it is difficult to be sure without sight of the original) that your legacies are indeed vjs viijd which is 6 shillings and eight pence; and xs (10 shillings), xxs (twenty shillings) and xxxxs (forty shillings). If you would like to send me a scan I can check for definite for you. Kind regards Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Bartlett" <imbart@globalnet.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: [OEL] Deciphering 17th Cent Will I have transcribed a 1626 will written Unfortunately I can't post a facsimile and can only describe what I take to be secretary hand. Some of the legacies in it baffle me. One to a Church (if it were modern script) reads "bjs biijd" which If the "b" (and they look just like "b"s which are definite "b"s elsewhere in the Will) is a "v" and I am led to believe "i" and "j" especially on the end are the same it would read vis viiid ( 6 shillings 8 pence?). I may have solved that but I stand to be corrected. Other legacies which I assume are money appear to be a series of lower case "e" is fairly large with the curl below the surrounding script. For example the parish poor is left "es" , a servant is left "ees" and a grandchild is left "eeees". I thought of pound signs yet two other people are left "fowerscore pounds of lawfull money of England". Any ideas? Ian Bartlett ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<< xs (10 shillings), xxs (twenty shillings) and xxxxs (forty shillings).>> Those sums do seem more likely than the 100 s., 200 s. and 400 s. I suggested. I was having trouble picturing an x that could be mistaken for an e (whereas a c can be very similar), but having now taken the trouble to look at a few documents from the period I have come across a couple of cases where the x's do indeed look a little like modern e's. So I think you're probably right, Polly. Matt ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<Those sums do seem more likely than the 100 s., 200 s. and 400 s. I suggested. I was having trouble picturing an x that could be mistaken for an e (whereas a c can be very similar), but having now taken the trouble to look at a few documents from the period I have come across a couple of cases where the x's do indeed look a little like modern e's. So I think you're probably right, Polly.>> Oh, I've just realised Ian has sent me an image of one of the numbers - Yes, definitely x's. Matt ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message