I see the original of the same will appears again, on page 11. This time the probate clause says (in translation): 19th November 1595 administration was granted to Richard Michel Thomas Strangwaies Hubert Galton and John Galton the overseers and guardians of Thomas Crumplehere the son and executor etc during his minority etc in the person of John Symons, notary, public sworn etc and they have to account at Michaelmas next On the question of 'ab intestat' deceden' - I ought to explain that what is baffling is that its obvious meaning ('dying intestate') doesn't fit the context - it appears in relation to both Richard and Mary Crumpler, who both clearly did leave wills. Eve has suggested, in relation to Richard's will, that it may be something to do with the fact that he didn't appoint an executor (though failure to name a will does not constitute intestacy, and one would have to re-interpret the words to produce a different meaning). Mary did nominate an executor, however - but he was under age, and so administration has again been granted to individuals not explicitly appointed as executors in the will. So I think Eve is on the right lines, and the use of 'ab intestat' deceden' must be somehow a consequence of the will either not nominating an executor, or nominating an executor who cannot act (which is why letters of administration were granted, rather than probate - these are letters of administration with will annexed) - but the problem remains that this is not intestacy, so how should the phrase be interpreted? Perhaps the explanation is just that in the Dean of Sarum's peculiar court at this time leaving a will which didn't nominate an executor who could act was indeed regarded as intestacy. Matt ________________________________________ From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tompkins, M.L.L. [mllt1@leicester.ac.uk] Sent: 28 February 2009 22:58 Cc: old-english@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] The Crumpler Wills This is Mary, wife of Richard Crumplehere, whose 1594/5 will we transcribed last weekend. I think she didn't say her husband is William Crumplehere - rather she gave him her husband's best coat (the sentence is 'I geve to W[illia]m Crumplehere my husband_ beste coate' and I think the strong tail at the end of 'husband', though it definitely doesn't loop, nevertheless indicates a gentival 'es', making it 'I give to William Crumplehere my husband's best coat.' The probate entry says (translated): The 19th day of the month of November AD 1595 was granted and [sic] administration of all and singular the goods rights and credits of Mary Crumplehere deceased late while she lived parishioner of Winterborne Kingeston in the peculiar jurisdiction of the Dean of Sarum 'ab intestas deceden' to Richard Michell Thomas Strangwayes Hubert Galton and John Galton overseers and guardians of Thomas Crumplehere during his minority in the person of John Symons, sworn well and faithfully to administer and to pay the debts and also to exhibit an inventory and to render an account etc Saving the right of anybody I'm still baffled by the phrase " ab intestas deceden' ". I think the 'et' in the second line was intended to be followed (as in the probate endorsement of the same date on her husband's original will) by 'littere tutele' Matt ________________________________________ From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Craig Walsh [craig@hmdp.com] Sent: 28 February 2009 16:31 To: mjcl Cc: davidmichael_uk@yahoo.co.uk; old-english@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] The Crumpler Wills Hi, Martyn --- Thank you! I've posted the document and your transcription at: http://www.lordoflucies.com/tng/showmedia.php?mediaID=721&medialinkID=1462 I confess to being at a loss as to who this Mary might be. She died in 1595, and her will indicates her husband was William and her son was Thomas. "Our" William --- with the 1614 will y'all so kindly helped me translate last week --- was married, at least at the time of his death, to Edith: http://www.lordoflucies.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I0840&tree=Walsh And Edith's "lawful and natural son" was John, born (we believe) between 1590 and 1610. So if Edith was married to "our" William in this period, Mary couldn't have been married to him (her death was 1595). William's father, Thomas, had other children who's first names we don't know: http://www.lordoflucies.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I0888&tree=Walsh Perhaps another William? Seems strange and unlikely. A project for the near future is to try to find the parish records for this period, if they still exist, and try to decipher how these people connected to one another. Please let me know if you have corrections, changes, etc., to the transcription now posted on the website. Yes, this is a great list with incredibly helpful folks. Thanks again. Kind regards, Craig Craig W Walsh Lucies Farm Ltd * Whitecroft * Colletts Green * Worcester WR2 4RY ***************************************************************** t 01905 830 380 m 07833 433 871 In the United States: 888-880-1531 See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch Stock imagery available at www.hmdp.net ***************************************************************** From: mjcl [mailto:mjcl111@googlemail.com] Sent: 28 February 2009 15:37 To: Craig Walsh Subject: Re: [OEL] The Crumpler Wills Hi Craig, I have attached my first attempt ..... Mary Crumplehere's will of July 1595. You probably saw my comments to Liz Agar. So she should be posting her own efforts as I suggested. I'm not going to bulldoze through this one and will do alternate documents as I suggested to her. I would ask that you post my effort for all to see as you did Eusebeia's. That way other learn and I get my errors corrected!!. By now you have found out what a great bunch are on this list! And I'm sure that Judith Werner, who looks after the list. will be over the moon as this was the objective of the list when set up! All the best, Martyn Privacy and Confidentiality Notice This is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify us as soon as possible and delete it and any attached files from your system. ==================================== 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

<<(though failure to name a will does not constitute intestacy>> I meant, failure to name *an executor* does not ... Matt

Hi Matt Today a will is not valid for many reasons, of which one is failure to name an executor. So while there is a will it is not a legally realised one, and so in legal terms the testator has died "intestate" and letters of administration, with a will attached (and the terms of which must be met) are granted instead of probate of the will itself. I am not sure that nowadays the minority of the executor would prove a bar to the vaidity of the will - just that the minor would have to have someone to act for them. So either this was different at the time, or perhaps the other will was not "legal" for some other of the many reasons - not signed, not properly witnessed, not dated...? Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> Cc: <old-english@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:27 AM Subject: [OEL] Mary Crumpler 1595, ab intesta' deceden' I see the original of the same will appears again, on page 11. This time the probate clause says (in translation): 19th November 1595 administration was granted to Richard Michel Thomas Strangwaies Hubert Galton and John Galton the overseers and guardians of Thomas Crumplehere the son and executor etc during his minority etc in the person of John Symons, notary, public sworn etc and they have to account at Michaelmas next On the question of 'ab intestat' deceden' - I ought to explain that what is baffling is that its obvious meaning ('dying intestate') doesn't fit the context - it appears in relation to both Richard and Mary Crumpler, who both clearly did leave wills. Eve has suggested, in relation to Richard's will, that it may be something to do with the fact that he didn't appoint an executor (though failure to name a will does not constitute intestacy, and one would have to re-interpret the words to produce a different meaning). Mary did nominate an executor, however - but he was under age, and so administration has again been granted to individuals not explicitly appointed as executors in the will. So I think Eve is on the right lines, and the use of 'ab intestat' deceden' must be somehow a consequence of the will either not nominating an executor, or nominating an executor who cannot act (which is why letters of administration were granted, rather than probate - these are letters of administration with will annexed) - but the problem remains that this is not intestacy, so how should the phrase be interpreted? Perhaps the explanation is just that in the Dean of Sarum's peculiar court at this time leaving a will which didn't nominate an executor who could act was indeed regarded as intestacy. Matt ________________________________________ From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tompkins, M.L.L. [mllt1@leicester.ac.uk] Sent: 28 February 2009 22:58 Cc: old-english@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] The Crumpler Wills This is Mary, wife of Richard Crumplehere, whose 1594/5 will we transcribed last weekend. I think she didn't say her husband is William Crumplehere - rather she gave him her husband's best coat (the sentence is 'I geve to W[illia]m Crumplehere my husband_ beste coate' and I think the strong tail at the end of 'husband', though it definitely doesn't loop, nevertheless indicates a gentival 'es', making it 'I give to William Crumplehere my husband's best coat.' The probate entry says (translated): The 19th day of the month of November AD 1595 was granted and [sic] administration of all and singular the goods rights and credits of Mary Crumplehere deceased late while she lived parishioner of Winterborne Kingeston in the peculiar jurisdiction of the Dean of Sarum 'ab intestas deceden' to Richard Michell Thomas Strangwayes Hubert Galton and John Galton overseers and guardians of Thomas Crumplehere during his minority in the person of John Symons, sworn well and faithfully to administer and to pay the debts and also to exhibit an inventory and to render an account etc Saving the right of anybody I'm still baffled by the phrase " ab intestas deceden' ". I think the 'et' in the second line was intended to be followed (as in the probate endorsement of the same date on her husband's original will) by 'littere tutele' Matt ________________________________________ From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Craig Walsh [craig@hmdp.com] Sent: 28 February 2009 16:31 To: mjcl Cc: davidmichael_uk@yahoo.co.uk; old-english@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] The Crumpler Wills Hi, Martyn --- Thank you! I've posted the document and your transcription at: http://www.lordoflucies.com/tng/showmedia.php?mediaID=721&medialinkID=1462 I confess to being at a loss as to who this Mary might be. She died in 1595, and her will indicates her husband was William and her son was Thomas. "Our" William --- with the 1614 will y'all so kindly helped me translate last week --- was married, at least at the time of his death, to Edith: http://www.lordoflucies.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I0840&tree=Walsh And Edith's "lawful and natural son" was John, born (we believe) between 1590 and 1610. So if Edith was married to "our" William in this period, Mary couldn't have been married to him (her death was 1595). William's father, Thomas, had other children who's first names we don't know: http://www.lordoflucies.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I0888&tree=Walsh Perhaps another William? Seems strange and unlikely. A project for the near future is to try to find the parish records for this period, if they still exist, and try to decipher how these people connected to one another. Please let me know if you have corrections, changes, etc., to the transcription now posted on the website. Yes, this is a great list with incredibly helpful folks. Thanks again. Kind regards, Craig Craig W Walsh Lucies Farm Ltd * Whitecroft * Colletts Green * Worcester WR2 4RY ***************************************************************** t 01905 830 380 m 07833 433 871 In the United States: 888-880-1531 See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch Stock imagery available at www.hmdp.net ***************************************************************** From: mjcl [mailto:mjcl111@googlemail.com] Sent: 28 February 2009 15:37 To: Craig Walsh Subject: Re: [OEL] The Crumpler Wills Hi Craig, I have attached my first attempt ..... Mary Crumplehere's will of July 1595. You probably saw my comments to Liz Agar. So she should be posting her own efforts as I suggested. I'm not going to bulldoze through this one and will do alternate documents as I suggested to her. I would ask that you post my effort for all to see as you did Eusebeia's. That way other learn and I get my errors corrected!!. By now you have found out what a great bunch are on this list! And I'm sure that Judith Werner, who looks after the list. will be over the moon as this was the objective of the list when set up! All the best, Martyn Privacy and Confidentiality Notice This is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify us as soon as possible and delete it and any attached files from your system. ==================================== 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 ==================================== 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