RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: MattD30 on Monday 16 October 17 01:48 BST (UK)
-
Hi
Can anyone tell me if they can read any of the attached image? This is the top third of the first page of the Will of Henry Maxted and although I can pick out some words I'm having great difficulty with finding any names or relationships in this as it is so faded and badly scrawled. If anyone thinks they can pic anything out then let me know and I'll post the other bits.
Thanks
Matt
-
The date is 2 August in the 25th year of Elizabeth I (1583).
The testator is Henry Maxsted of Chilsonn in the Countie of Kent yeoman (or yeaman).
Most of the extract is taken up by the usual formalities.
However, I believe he refers to agnes my wief in the last complete line.
I suggest that another extract beginning at a point about 5 lines up from the bottom of this one will catch more useful information.
-
I agree with his wife being Agnes, but I think it is Chilham in Kent. Difficult hand.
-
...I think it is Chilham in Kent.
Yes, having looked again, I agree.
By the way, Matt, at this time the names Agnes and Anne were used interchangeably.
-
The date is 2 August in the 25th year of Elizabeth I (1583).
The testator is Henry Maxsted of Chilsonn in the Countie of Kent yeoman (or yeaman).
Most of the extract is taken up by the usual formalities.
However, I believe he refers to agnes my wief in the last complete line.
I suggest that another extract beginning at a point about 5 lines up from the bottom of this one will catch more useful information.
Thanks that makes sense to me. Henry was of Chilham although I hadn't worked out his wife's name.
Thanks again and I will post the remaining parts in the hope that you or others can shed more light on the contents .
Matt
-
I agree with his wife being Agnes, but I think it is Chilham in Kent. Difficult hand.
Yes it is Chilham, or at least that is what is in the index to Canterbury Wills and I know that the Maxted family had connections in Chilham.
Matt
-
...I think it is Chilham in Kent.
Yes, having looked again, I agree.
By the way, Matt, at this time the names Agnes and Anne were used interchangeably.
Hiya
I know and it does get confusing sometimes when a woman is referred to as Agnes in one context and Annes/Anne in another. It's especially confusing when there are sisters where one is called Agnes and the other Anne.
As a basic rule I tend to stick with the name used most often as this makes it easier when identifying a person in my files. Where possible I also keep a note stating "also known as....."
Matt
-
Here is the second image from the Will of Henry Maxted of Chilham.
This is the original will and unfortunately I haven't been able to find a registered copy which is a bit annoying as I bet that would be clearer to read.
In the fourth line of the second image I think he mentions a daughter named "Elizabeth"
After that it looks like there is mention of a daughter named "Johane" and possibly a son named "Wyllym"
Image 3 to follow...
Thanks again for the help.
Matt
-
Here's the last image for now.
This is the bottom third of the first page of Henry Maxted's Will and continues on from image 2 (there may be some overlap).
In this section of the Will near the end it looks like he refers to "John my youngest son" but I suggest this needs double checking.
I will post the rest of the Will in the next few days.
Thank again
Matt
-
Here is the first half of the second image:
It appears that some lines have been omitted between the first and second image.
Starting with the first complete bequest (and ignoring words crossed-out):
It(e)m I will
to margarett hall my doughter wthin one q(uar)t(er)
of a yere next after my deceasse the sum(m)e of vjli xiijs iiijd
It(e)m I will to Elizab(e)t Watson my doughter
wthin one q(uar)t(er) of a yere next after my deceasse the sum(m)e of
xls ^& all my arples growing at [?ettes]^ It(e)m I will to Johan my doughter wthin ^half^ of a yere
next after my deceasse the som(m)e of xli It(e)m I will to Will(ia)m
ffyliv(er) my doughters son wthin one half yere next after my
deceasse the som(m)e of xxs
Note:
Certain of the monetary amount are preceded by what looks like an o and line. I think this is a flourish (a lead-in dash), but may be wrong as not all do.
-
To speed matters up. here are the people mentioned in the remainder of Image 2:
1. luce ffyliv(er) h(is) [?]
The his presumably refers to William ffyliver, but the ? escapes me for the moment.
Luce is aged less than 18 at the time of writing.
2. henry maxsted my son will(ia)ms son
3. Thomas Watson my doughters son
-
Mentioned in Image 3:
1. ...all the rest of my son Willyams Children...
2. ...my son Johns doughter... [not named]
3. ...John my yongest son...
4 & 5. ...Rob(er)t my son & my eldest son John...
6. ...my son Will(ia)m...
7. ...John [Page?] my s(er)v(a)nt...
-
Referring back to my Reply #10, luce ffyliver is William ffyliver's sist(er).
-
Here is the first half of the second image:
It appears that some lines have been omitted between the first and second image.
Starting with the first complete bequest (and ignoring words crossed-out):
It(e)m I will
to margarett hall my doughter wthin one q(uar)t(er)
of a yere next after my deceasse the sum(m)e of vjli xiijs iiijd
It(e)m I will to Elizab(e)t Watson my doughter
wthin one q(uar)t(er) of a yere next after my deceasse the sum(m)e of
xls ^& all my arples growing at [?ettes]^ It(e)m I will to Johan my doughter wthin ^half^ of a yere
next after my deceasse the som(m)e of xli It(e)m I will to Will(ia)m
ffyliv(er) my doughters son wthin one half yere next after my
deceasse the som(m)e of xxs
Note:
Certain of the monetary amount are preceded by what looks like an o and line. I think this is a flourish (a lead-in dash), but may be wrong as not all do.
Hi there
Many, many thanks for this help. The details in this section confirm that this is my ancestor, the key line was this:
"It(e)m I will to Elizab(e)t Watson my doughter "
Elizabeth Maxted/Mexted was married to Thomas Watson, whose Will I already have. It is their son, Thomas Watson, who is named in the second part of image 2. Also the mention of Henry's son John in the third extract is key because in Thomas Watson's will he mentions his brother in law "John Maxsted" .
Now I feel I can build up a tree for the Maxted family, even a very basic tree.
I am going to post the last images tomorrow but this give me enough to know that this is my ancestor.
Many thanks again for help.
Matt
-
The details in this section confirm that this is my ancestor...
Good to hear, Matt. Thanks for letting me know.
-
Here is the second page of this Will, again cropped into sections.
This first part is from the top of the page. I think in this piece I see someone named Sybill mentioned but can't make the surname out (it looks like she's a widow though).
There is also another mention of his wife Agnes and I believe he mentions "Robert Maxsted my Son" near the end.
Next sections to follow....
Many thanks
Matt
-
Here's the next piece of this Will.
There is a lot of crossing out in the lower half of this piece but it would be good if any of the crossed out writing could be made out.
The continuation of this bit is coming next.
Matt
-
Here's the next piece.
This bit continues from the end of extract 2.
I think in this piece I can make out the names of three sons, William Maxsted, Robert Maxsted, and John Maxsted. Other people might be named as well.
Matt
-
Last part of the Will.
There is also what looks like note of Probate which is in a different and clearer hand. This will be coming next as I don't think I can get both images up on one post.
Matt
-
Sorry this bit was posted by mistake. Can I delete this post?
Matt
-
Sorry this bit was posted by mistake. Can I delete this post?
Matt
-
Sorry this bit was posted by mistake. Can I delete this post?
Matt
-
From Page 2, Extract 1:
He gives to eldest son John his (the testator's) part of corn which he sowed in half shares with John.
Then:
...I will yt Rob(er)t my son shall have at mich(aelmas) next the
ferm w(hi)ch I have at Old [Wadestease?] of Sybill [Whyte?] wydowe
w(i)th the p(ro)fytte of all suche fallowe as I have there uppon for
those three yeres w(hi)ch my self should have the same by p(ro)myse...
Finally he gives the residue of his moveable goods unbequeathed (debts and legacies paid etc) to his wife Agnes.
He makes Agnes and his son Robert Maxsted the executors.
He makes Thomas Cobbes of Chilham his overseer.
I don't have time to tackle the next image now but will do so when I can.
-
...And as touching my mesuage wherein I nowe dwell in
[Ch?lham] Aforeseid w(i)th all the landes & other heredytam(en)tes thereto
belongyng I wyll yt Agnes my wief shall have the same
duryng her lief kepyng the rep(ar)ac(i)ons & payeng the Lordes
rent And after her deceasse I will yt ye same
shall remayn to Will(ia)m Rob(er)t & the elder John maxsed my
sones ^equaly betwene them to be devyded^ & to the heires ^[males?]^ of there bodyes laufullye begotten &...
The following section, containing the crossing out, is very difficult.
He covers what is to happen if any of his children die without issue males of his body lawfully begotten.
It finishes with a phrase:
...accordyng to the [?] [?] of [Gavelfynd?]...
Does that ring a bell with anyone?
-
...accordyng to the [?] [?] of [Gavelfynd?]...
Does that ring a bell with anyone?
Gavelkind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind
-
My goodness Jen you are quick.
Thank you, that looks to be the practice or tradition to which he refers.
-
End of the will & testament:
...And I will yt ^my^ seid ^sonnes^ Will(ia)m maxsted
Rob(er)t m & the eld(e)st John maxsted
w(i)th in half a yere next after the deceasse of Agnes my wief
should pay ^yf they be alyve^ to Edward maxsted my son eche of them the som(m)e
of fyve m(ar)kes...
It goes on to cover who pays the five markes if any of the first three sons should die with and without issue male.
Then:
...thise being wytnesses to this will &
testam(en)t Thomas Cobbes of Chilham aforesed Thomas Watson
of Chilham aforeseid son in lawe to the seid henry maxsted & John
Page h(is) s(er)v(a)nte
-
Stalwart job, HD. It will have taken a lot of your time. I’m sorry not to have contributed, due to lack of time this week.
A summary of the probate (extract 4) ...
On 11 December 1583, before Stephen Lakes, by the oaths of Thomas Cobb, gentleman, Thomas Watson and John Page witnesses, probate was granted to the executors who were sworn.
-
From Page 2, Extract 1:
He gives to eldest son John his (the testator's) part of corn which he sowed in half shares with John.
Then:
...I will yt Rob(er)t my son shall have at mich(aelmas) next the
ferm w(hi)ch I have at Old [Wadestease?] of Sybill [Whyte?] wydowe
w(i)th the p(ro)fytte of all suche fallowe as I have there uppon for
those three yeres w(hi)ch my self should have the same by p(ro)myse...
Finally he gives the residue of his moveable goods unbequeathed (debts and legacies paid etc) to his wife Agnes.
He makes Agnes and his son Robert Maxsted the executors.
He makes Thomas Cobbes of Chilham his overseer.
I don't have time to tackle the next image now but will do so when I can.
Hiya
Thanks for that info. I wonder if "ferm" could be 'farm'? What do you think?
No rush for the rest of this as I'm already able to build up a picture based on what you've managed to transcribe. Interestingly I have now found more Maxsted Wills which may include the Wills of his parents or other relatives.
Thanks again and I look forward to your next helpful bit of info.
Matt
-
...accordyng to the [?] [?] of [Gavelfynd?]...
Does that ring a bell with anyone?
Gavelkind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind
Yes definitely Gravelkind. A system of inheritance of land tenure used mainly in Kent. I've seen it before in many other Kent Wills.
Matt
-
...And as touching my mesuage wherein I nowe dwell in
[Ch?lham] Aforeseid w(i)th all the landes & other heredytam(en)tes thereto
belongyng I wyll yt Agnes my wief shall have the same
duryng her lief kepyng the rep(ar)ac(i)ons & payeng the Lordes
rent And after her deceasse I will yt ye same
shall remayn to Will(ia)m Rob(er)t & the elder John maxsed my
sones ^equaly betwene them to be devyded^ & to the heires ^[males?]^ of there bodyes laufullye begotten &...
The following section, containing the crossing out, is very difficult.
He covers what is to happen if any of his children die without issue males of his body lawfully begotten.
It finishes with a phrase:
...accordyng to the [?] [?] of [Gavelfynd?]...
Does that ring a bell with anyone?
I wonder if the missing word in that last bit could be "law" as in "the law of gravelkind" or perhaps "custom" or "traditions"?
-
Many, many, many thanks to Everyone who's helped with this Will, especially HD. I think Wills are a really useful resource and it is so annoying when you can't quite make something out for certain. When I knew what the extracts said I could actually see the words! Some of them were so obvious I don't know how I missed them before, perhaps it was just a case of not being 100% certain.
Anyhow many thanks again for the help. I'll be posting something else sometime soon but this will be a lot clearer I promise.
Best Wishes to everyone who helped.
Matt
-
Mentioned in Image 3:
1. ...all the rest of my son Willyams Children...
2. ...my son Johns doughter... [not named]
3. ...John my yongest son...
4 & 5. ...Rob(er)t my son & my eldest son John...
6. ...my son Will(ia)m...
7. ...John [Page?] my s(er)v(a)nt...
Is it clear what order his children were born in from this? In line 3 John is described as "my youngest son" yet in line 5 it says "my eldest son John". Do you think Robert is the eldest son with John being the youngest, with William in the middle?
Matt
-
1. Yes, I would interpret ferm as farm.
2. Regarding the birth order, I think he has two sons named John.
John is the eldest, then (in some unknown order) come Robert, William & Edward, followed by John the youngest.
He is careful to qualify any mention of a John by adding eldest/youngest (unless referring to one of John's children, which might not be ambiguous).
ADDED:
Although, on looking again, it's possible that the references to eldest/youngest are relative only to the Johns, and not to the other boys.
I don't think we can draw definite conclusions, beyond that there were two Johns.
-
1. Yes, I would interpret ferm as farm.
2. Regarding the birth order, I think he has two sons named John.
John is the eldest, then (in some unknown order) come Robert, William & Edward, followed by John the youngest.
He is careful to qualify any mention of a John by adding eldest/youngest (unless referring to one of John's children, which might not be ambiguous).
ADDED:
Although, on looking again, it's possible that the references to eldest/youngest are relative only to the Johns, and not to the other boys.
I don't think we can draw definite conclusions, beyond that there were two Johns.
Hi thanks for that. It's interesting that there are [possibly] two Johns, but not the first time I've seen this happen.
I've been looking through the Canterbury Wills database and there are a number of other Maxsted wills which I think will be worth looking at as they may be relatives. These include: Agnes Maxsted (1553), John Maxsted (1544), and Thomas Maxsted (1535).
There is also a will in 1598 for William Fyfield which might be related to the William Fyfield mentioned in this Will.
Now I have some details with which to draw up a basic family tree I should be able to build up a better picture of this family.
Matt
-
There is also a will in 1598 for William Fyfield which might be related to the William Fyfield mentioned in this Will.
I don't remember a Fyfield.
We did have William and Luce ffyliver.
-
I suspect the place transcribed as Old [Wadestease?] is Old Wives Lees which is very near Chilham.
I am working on this family, particularly Henry's son Robert.
-
I suspect the place transcribed as Old [Wadestease?] is Old Wives Lees which is very near Chilham.
I am working on this family, particularly Henry's son Robert.
Thanks for that suggestion. This does make sense after looking at other Wills etc related to the family.
Matt