Mysteriously brief will

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Rhonda Jordan

Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Rhonda Jordan » 25 feb 2005 07:00:02

With Matt Tompkins' permission, I'm posting here some questions raised by a curiously short will that Matt transcribed for me via the Old English list.

Considering the local importance of the fellow in question (at that time, anyway -- 1471 -- though the family later disappeared from Norfolk entirely), it seems like he would have had a more complicated will. I only recently found for certain which John Blakeney this was, hence the new questions.

Here is Matt's transcription and original comments, with my questions to this group following:

Hello Rhonda,

I'll reply about the will first.

A quick and dirty translation is:

"In the name of God Amen John Blakeney esquire of sound mind and good memory
on 20th September 1470 made his will in this manner. First he bequeathed
his soul to almighty God the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints and he
left all his goods, moveable and immoveable, to Joan his wife to provide for
their sons and to dispose of as seems to her most fit which certain Joan my
wife [sic] he ordained and constituted his executrix

The above written will was proved at Lambeth 6 November 1471 and approved
etc and administration of all the goods of the said deceased was granted to
his relict and executrix Joan etc [the rest is just standard form wording]"

It does seem a little short, even for that period, so I suspect it is a
paraphrase rather than a verbatim copy.

Matt

This John Blakeney was well connected and had a considerable estate at Honingham and other places. The widow, Joan, is the sister of Sir Roger Townshend I. A book by C.E. Moreton about the Townshends suggests that Joan "married UP" with respect to John and that Roger's career benefited greatly from John's influence. John had been a clerk of the signet and a royal servant as well as active in local government in Norfolk.

So why, with all this considered, would the 1471 will consist of that tiny paragraph? And why would a paraphrased record of a will be recorded? And why would it be paraphrased in the third person? Where might the original be?

I am very surprised that the sons were not even mentioned by name. John and Joan did have at least two sons, the younger being Thomas. Moreton states that "Both Blakeney and his second son, Thomas, were trustees for Roger I [Sir Roger Townshend]." But as John Blakeney Sr. died in 1471, and Sir Roger T. died in 1493, it might actually have been John Jr. here referenced. That would account for the name of the elder son.

I will appreciate any input.

Sincerely,

Rhonda

Rhonda Jordan

re: mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Rhonda Jordan » 25 feb 2005 07:20:02

Er, scratch the last two lines of the last full paragraph. They don't make sense.

Rhonda

----------------
With Matt Tompkins' permission, I'm posting here some questions raised by a curiously short will that Matt transcribed for me via the Old English list.

Considering the local importance of the fellow in question (at that time, anyway -- 1471 -- though the family later disappeared from Norfolk entirely), it seems like he would have had a more complicated will. I only recently found for certain which John Blakeney this was, hence the new questions.

Here is Matt's transcription and original comments, with my questions to this group following:

Hello Rhonda,

I'll reply about the will first.

A quick and dirty translation is:

"In the name of God Amen John Blakeney esquire of sound mind and good memory
on 20th September 1470 made his will in this manner. First he bequeathed
his soul to almighty God the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints and he
left all his goods, moveable and immoveable, to Joan his wife to provide for
their sons and to dispose of as seems to her most fit which certain Joan my
wife [sic] he ordained and constituted his executrix

The above written will was proved at Lambeth 6 November 1471 and approved
etc and administration of all the goods of the said deceased was granted to
his relict and executrix Joan etc [the rest is just standard form wording]"

It does seem a little short, even for that period, so I suspect it is a
paraphrase rather than a verbatim copy.

Matt

This John Blakeney was well connected and had a considerable estate at Honingham and other places. The widow, Joan, is the sister of Sir Roger Townshend I. A book by C.E. Moreton about the Townshends suggests that Joan "married UP" with respect to John and that Roger's career benefited greatly from John's influence. John had been a clerk of the signet and a royal servant as well as active in local government in Norfolk.

So why, with all this considered, would the 1471 will consist of that tiny paragraph? And why would a paraphrased record of a will be recorded? And why would it be paraphrased in the third person? Where might the original be?

I am very surprised that the sons were not even mentioned by name. John and Joan did have at least two sons, the younger being Thomas. Moreton states that "Both Blakeney and his second son, Thomas, were trustees for Roger I [Sir Roger Townshend]." But as John Blakeney Sr. died in 1471, and Sir Roger T. died in 1493, it might actually have been John Jr. here referenced. That would account for the name of the elder son.

I will appreciate any input.

Sincerely,

Rhonda

R. Battle

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av R. Battle » 25 feb 2005 07:46:14

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Rhonda Jordan wrote:

With Matt Tompkins' permission, I'm posting here some questions raised
by a curiously short will that Matt transcribed for me via the Old
English list.
snip

"In the name of God Amen John Blakeney esquire of sound mind and good
memory on 20th September 1470 made his will in this manner. First he
bequeathed his soul to almighty God the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the
saints and he left all his goods, moveable and immoveable, to Joan his
wife to provide for their sons and to dispose of as seems to her most
fit which certain Joan my wife [sic] he ordained and constituted his
executrix
snip


This looks to me like a nuncupative will (that is, a verbal will that,
after the fact, was recorded and sworn to by those who heard it).

-Robert Battle

Chris Dickinson

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 25 feb 2005 11:41:01

Rhonda Jordan wrote:

<snip>
Considering the local importance of the fellow in question (at that time,
anyway -- 1471 -- though the family later disappeared from Norfolk
entirely), it seems like he would have had a more complicated will.
<snip>

"In the name of God Amen John Blakeney esquire of sound mind and good
memory
on 20th September 1470 made his will in this manner. First he bequeathed
his soul to almighty God the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints and
he
left all his goods, moveable and immoveable, to Joan his wife to provide
for
their sons and to dispose of as seems to her most fit which certain Joan
my
wife [sic] he ordained and constituted his executrix
snip
It does seem a little short, even for that period, so I suspect it is a
paraphrase rather than a verbatim copy.
snip
So why, with all this considered, would the 1471 will consist of that tiny
paragraph? And why would a paraphrased record of a will be recorded? And

why would it be paraphrased in the third person? Where might the original
be?
I am very surprised that the sons were not even mentioned by name.


This is a nuncupative will. That is, it was written down by a witness from
directions made by the dying man just before probable death.

Such wills can be very short, depending on how much of an emergency
it was. This may, for instance, be the consequence of a mortal injury
sustained in battle, an industrial accident (I've seen 17th weavers doing
similar wills) or just some sudden illness.

Such wills can be very unreliable. The testator may easily forget things or
get them wrong, and the witness can easily misunderstand. In this case, the
testator has left his wife Joan to do everything, without any further
details - which suggests that either time was very short indeed or that he
trusted his wife completely.

So, there is nothing odd about the brevity or format of the will. Indeed,
this can provide you wih additional information - the date of the will
almost certainly will be the same day as the testator's death (or,
conceivably, done the night before a battle). Were there any battles on that
day? Is there any indication in the documentation where the death took
place - for instance, I have a will of a Cumbrian soldier with a nuncupative
will in which it is stated on the probate bundle cover that he 'dyed in
Scotland'. The open nature of the will might also suggest, if this were a
battle, that his sons were involved there too.

The will and the presumed death are, by the way, dated 1470. If the testator
had survived whatever seemed likely to kill him in 1470, he would probably
have had a more formal less subject-to-dispute will drawn up. The will was
only proved in 1471, so be careful not to call it a 1471 will (which implies
that it was written in that year and that the testator was still alive in
1471).

Chris

Rhonda Jordan

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Rhonda Jordan » 25 feb 2005 15:51:01

Dear Chris, Robert, et al:

Thanks for your input on this. Nuncupative is probably the answer. But
previously, Matt Tompkins raised this question about that (and I forgot to
copy it into my query):

"I don't know enough about the PCC's procedures in the medieval period to be
able to say why the 1470 will is so short. At a later period I might hazard
the guess that it was a nuncupative will (one made orally, on the testator's
deathbed) -

but a. if that was the case then one would expect the date of probate to be
soon after the date of the will, whereas in this case it is a year later,
and

b. at this early period so few wills were recorded in the PCC's registers
that I wonder whether a mere nuncupative one would have been included. But
the truth is that I just don't know.

I have seen at least one other will from roughly the same period that was
clearly a summary of the will's provisions, not its complete text, so this
may just have been the normal procedure at the time."

So, why would the probate have been so long afterward?

Excellent point about a nuncupative will suggesting sudden death (and about
my erroneously referring to this as a 1471 will, based on the probate date
rather than that of the writing of the will). I will see what I can find
out about what was going on around Sept. 20, 1470. In a footnote about the
will in THE TOWNSHENDS AND THE WORLD: GENTRY, LAW, AND LAND IN NORFOLK c.
1450-1551, author C.E. Moreton states, "DESPITE THE DATE [my caps, not
Moreton's], there is no evidence that he died from anything but natural
causes." I wondered what was meant by that statement, but I didn't realize
what a clue it could be. I don't know what he means by "there is no
evidence..." The footnote refers only to the will file, which I ordered
from the PRO and Matt transcribed for me. If he means there's no evidence
in the will that he died of anything but natural causes, it doesn't seem to
me there's any evidence that precludes death from a wound, battle-related or
otherwise.

The will was proved at Lambeth. Would that mean he died there? He was at
some point given charge of Lambeth Castle, but I don't remember that being
so at the time of his death. -- Can't find that file, so frustrating --

Thanks again for your comments already given, and those I anticipate...
:-)

Sincerely,

Rhonda

Chris Dickinson

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 25 feb 2005 17:11:01

Rhonda Jordan quotes from different sources:

[my comments interspersed]

<snip>
At a later period I might hazard
the guess that it was a nuncupative will (one made orally, on the
testator's
deathbed) -

but a. if that was the case then one would expect the date of probate to
be
soon after the date of the will, whereas in this case it is a year later,
and

I don't think that's a problem. Indeed, I would have thought that a
nuncupative will was likely to take longer in probate:

(1)
the will was more likely to be challenged and its terms disputed;

(2)
a nuncupative will in a civil war might take a long time to prove. Which
side was your man on? Edward fled to the continent on 2nd October 1470. He
returned triumphant to London on 21 May 1471. If your man was killed before
Edward left, then the process of probate might only have got going after
Edward's return.

<snip>
I have seen at least one other will from roughly the same period that was
clearly a summary of the will's provisions, not its complete text, so this
may just have been the normal procedure at the time."

I don't know enough about wills of this period to say, but I would be
surprised if summaries included the preamble 'In the name of God Amen'.

<snip>
DESPITE THE DATE [my caps, not
Moreton's], there is no evidence that he died from anything but natural
causes." I wondered what was meant by that statement, but I didn't
realize
what a clue it could be. I don't know what he means by "there is no
evidence..." The footnote refers only to the will file, which I ordered
from the PRO and Matt transcribed for me. If he means there's no evidence
in the will that he died of anything but natural causes, it doesn't seem
to
me there's any evidence that precludes death from a wound, battle-related
or
otherwise.

Presumably 'despite the date' refers to Edward's temporary embarrassment. It
would be reasonable to argue that a nuncupative will is evidence for death
from non-natural causes; but it would also be reasonable to argue that it
isn't evidence for death from battle. Your man could simply, for instance,
have been killed from a fall from a horse - or been the victim of the
diseases that tend to accompany migrating armies.


The will was proved at Lambeth. Would that mean he died there?

No


Chris

Renia

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Renia » 25 feb 2005 17:49:41

Rhonda Jordan wrote:

Dear Chris, Robert, et al:

Thanks for your input on this. Nuncupative is probably the answer. But
previously, Matt Tompkins raised this question about that (and I forgot to
copy it into my query):

"I don't know enough about the PCC's procedures in the medieval period to be
able to say why the 1470 will is so short. At a later period I might hazard
the guess that it was a nuncupative will (one made orally, on the testator's
deathbed) -

but a. if that was the case then one would expect the date of probate to be
soon after the date of the will, whereas in this case it is a year later,
and

b. at this early period so few wills were recorded in the PCC's registers
that I wonder whether a mere nuncupative one would have been included. But
the truth is that I just don't know.

I have seen at least one other will from roughly the same period that was
clearly a summary of the will's provisions, not its complete text, so this
may just have been the normal procedure at the time."

So, why would the probate have been so long afterward?

Excellent point about a nuncupative will suggesting sudden death (and about
my erroneously referring to this as a 1471 will, based on the probate date
rather than that of the writing of the will). I will see what I can find
out about what was going on around Sept. 20, 1470. In a footnote about the
will in THE TOWNSHENDS AND THE WORLD: GENTRY, LAW, AND LAND IN NORFOLK c.
1450-1551, author C.E. Moreton states, "DESPITE THE DATE [my caps, not
Moreton's], there is no evidence that he died from anything but natural
causes." I wondered what was meant by that statement, but I didn't realize
what a clue it could be. I don't know what he means by "there is no
evidence..." The footnote refers only to the will file, which I ordered
from the PRO and Matt transcribed for me. If he means there's no evidence
in the will that he died of anything but natural causes, it doesn't seem to
me there's any evidence that precludes death from a wound, battle-related or
otherwise.

The will was proved at Lambeth. Would that mean he died there? He was at
some point given charge of Lambeth Castle, but I don't remember that being
so at the time of his death. -- Can't find that file, so frustrating --

Thanks again for your comments already given, and those I anticipate...
:-)


I have a full will from Yorkshire written in the first person, dated
20th September 1472, proved a month later on 20th October 1472. It
begins with the preamble "In dei nomine Amen . . ." which Chris
Dickinson was wondering about.

I also have a later will, dated 19 Jun 1651, witnessed 30th June 1651,
and not proved until 5 July 1656, when the eldest child was aged 21. It
is written in the third person. The subject died between June and
September 1651.

My great-aunt's will was dated July 1940 but was not proven until 1954,
by which time, my mother (one of her heirs and the youngest child) had
reached the age of 21. The lawyers took some time to locate my mother
because we had moved to Scotland.

I'm doing battle with another 17th century will (I haven't seen it - I
have only odd dates from indexes) which suggests my man was dead by
1677, but his will wasn't proven until 1686, when the youngest had
reached 21.

So your will does sound like a noncupative one, possibly not proven
until the youngest child had reached 21.

Lambeth Palace is the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps that
is significant to your will.

Renia

Chris Dickinson

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 25 feb 2005 18:31:02

Renia wrote:

<snip>
It begins with the preamble "In dei nomine Amen . . ." which Chris
Dickinson was wondering about.
snip


I think you misunderstood my point. All wills began 'In the name of God
Amen' or the Latin thereof. I was questioning, though, whether a clerk's
summary of a will would bother with that.

Chris

Renia

Re: Mysteriously brief will

Legg inn av Renia » 25 feb 2005 18:43:00

Chris Dickinson wrote:

Renia wrote:

snip

It begins with the preamble "In dei nomine Amen . . ." which Chris
Dickinson was wondering about.

snip

I think you misunderstood my point. All wills began 'In the name of God
Amen' or the Latin thereof. I was questioning, though, whether a clerk's
summary of a will would bother with that.

Yes, I realised that after I'd posted and had forgotten to delete it!

Renia

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»