Help with details from 1390s will

[Marayong]

Hi, I'm hoping someone can help me with the will of Sir Richard atte Leese from the Nat Archives (https://tinyurl.com/52h4zy96). Whilst I'd not say no to a full translation, realistically I'm just after the confirmation (or otherwise) of information on Richard's extended family. From other sources I know Richard was survived by his widow, Dionisa (Denise), for whom he presumably provided for in his will. The bulk of his estate was however bequeathed to Cecily & Valentine Barrett and Lucy & John Norton.

Firstly, I would like to know just what relationship between Richard and Cecily & Lucy is given in the will. 2ndry sources all agree Lucy was the d/o Richard's brother, Marcel (or Marcellus), however they are divided on the parentage of Cecily. Some give her as Richard's daughter, others give her as Marcel's daughter. I'm hoping Richard's will can shed light on which.

Secondly, I would like to know if the will gives any indication as to the status of Richard's brother, Marcel, namely as to whether he alive or deceased when Richard write his will? The last documented evidence I've found for him was a 1391/2 deed when he granted several manors to his daughter, Cecily, and her husband.

Thirdly, I would like to know the date the will was written - the NA index gives the probate date.

Finally, and this is the one of particular interest, does the will mention any other atte Leese relatives and if so who and what relationship did they have? My interest here is that Richard was of Lees Court in Sheldwich and in the early 1400s another Richard atte Leese, then of faversham, sold land in Sheldwich which he appears to have inherited. Was this other Richard a kinsman of Sir Richard or is his surname and both possessing lands in Sheldwich just a coincidence? Neither Sir Richard or Marcel appear to have had sons and they had no other brothers (as per their mother's will).

The full sized will can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/42ays4b9

[horselydown86]

Thirdly, I would like to know the date the will was written - the NA index gives the probate date.

I can do this one fairly quickly.  The others will take a while so an attempt will have to wait until tonight.

He applied his seal on the 12^th of August 1394.

[Marayong]

That's one out of 4 ... it's a start. Thanks!

[horselydown86]

Summary of the will:

First three lines - testamentary formalities and expresses a wish to be buried in the Chapel of the Blessed Mary in the church of Sheldewy(n)ch in which his father Sampson is buried.

From line 4 to 16 are many bequests to ecclesiastical persons and bodies, and bequests to the poor.

One personal matter in this section is a bequest to the prior and convent of Bylsyngton for the souls of him, Stepham de fforsham and his parents.

After these the first mention is made of dionisiam his wife, and he makes bequests to his servants.

He makes bequests to:

Elizabeth Topclyf

John Godard and his wife.

Katherine the daughter of John Ordemer.

Eleanor the daughter of John atte tonne/toune.

His filiolos and filiolas.  These are "little sons" and "little daughters". I dimly recall these are godchildren but can't find the reference and a search here comes up empty.

Richard atte helle, Chaplain.

Lore fitz Reginald Kyngeslond.

Thomas atte tonne/toune.

Then he is back onto bequests to many ecclesiastical bodies and places.

I will need to stop here and continue tomorrow.  It's slow going.

However, I think you will be disappointed in the results.  I'm not seeing the names you have mentioned in your post.

[Marayong]

Thanks for this. Does the will give any names for the filiolos and filiolas or just identifies them as that? At the time of his will both Lucy & Ceillia would have had issue. One of them had only a daughter (surviving, don't know about any dsp issue), the other had at least one son since that name carried on. Of course, godchildren is an all encompassing term that isn't restricted to family.

The lack of a mention of Lucy & Cecilia is not a huge disappointment. There were a series of grants made shortly before he died regarding his various manors so he may have already disposed of his land assets. If the will does not specifically bequeath anything to one of the women (and not the other), then they are clearly equally related (ie both children or both nieces and not one of each) - after all he's hardly going to treat his daughter & niece equally. I have another deed that states one of the two women was the d/o Marcel .... so in this case no news is still good news - the lack of any specific reference points to Cecilie & Lucy both being daughters of Marcel.

The issue is that an abstract by Leland Duncan of the will of Richard's mother, Lora atte Leese refers to just one grandchild, Cecilia, the daughter of Richard. Others have dismissed this as an error, but I'm reluctant to do that without the actual will. Pending what Richard's will says I'd prefer to compromise by having two Cecilias, with both Richard & Marcel having daughters by that name, Richard's supposed daughter being mentioned since he was the eldest son but his daughter dying soon after ... with the note that the 2nd Cecilia may or may not have existed. The will of Richard's widow would be nice, but it apparently no longer exists.

At-Town, Topclift & Kingsland are all mentioned in the abstract of Lora's will (and various other records with Richard), so their appearance in Richard’s will does point to them being additional sisters.

As for Richard's will, I guess I'm down to hoping there's something amongst the witnesses, overseers and the like for anything about Marcel and the other Richard.

[horselydown86]

Continuing from Reply #3.........many more bequests to cover.

The bequests resume with one to lore dandelyon.

Then bequests to:

Elizabeth the daughter of John Haddelegh or Haddeleygh.

Reginald Kynggesland.

brother Richard Bourne (presumably a clergyman).

Alice Reynald.

John Bocony/Bocoun?

Peter Molesse.

William Huntekyn.

Simon Hankero.

Katerine Cokerell.

John Gybbe, I think described as famulo meo.  If correct, this is:  my servant

Thomas Scot.

Thomas Machann or Machum.

John Robert.

Then there's a statement:

Et quo ad om(n)ia sup(er)ius legata velo q(uo)d [qu?q(ue) - one or two words?] [eor(um)?] sup(er) vixerit h(ab)eat legata & non aliter

I think this is setting a condition on the previous legacies relating to whether someone is living or surviving.

However, I can't be sure while the transcript is incomplete.

I will need to stop now until later (or tomorrow).

However, for a preview of the next group of bequests, he gives 10 marks to the two daughters of lore dandelyon.

[Bookbox]

To pick up after horselydown’s stalwart work:

Et quo ad om(n)ia sup(er)ius legata volo q(uo)d quicumq(ue) eor(um) sup(er)vixerit h(ab)eat legata & non aliter

And as regards everything bequeathed above, I will that whoever survives should have the bequests, and not otherwise (i.e. without reversion to descendants).

To the 2 daughters of Lore Danndelyon, 10 marks
To Agnes, wife of John Danyel, 5 marks, and to his daughters, 10 marks
To Richard, his son, 5 marks
To the daughters of the same John, 10 marks
To the wife and unmarried daughters of John Valennes[?], 10 marks
To John Hughes and Richard Hughes, 5 marks
To Cecily Bardelond[?], 20 shillings
To the children of the said Cecily, 20 shillings
To Stephen atte lenetonne[?], 20 shillings
To the Vicar of Sheldwych Church, for assisting my executors, 40 shillings
To Nicholas atte churche, 20 shillings
To Guy de Valence, 20 shillings
To Thomas atte cherche, 13s 4d
To the fabric of Christ Church Canterbury, 40 shillings
Residue to be disposed by my executors for the salvation of my soul and the souls of my relatives and all the faithful deceased
Executors – Dennis my wife, Thomas atte Tonne, John Godard[?], Reginald Kyngeslond
sealed 12 August 1394
To the Convent of St Augustine, Canterbury, 40 shillings

There was a double probate, but I think it has no new names. Say if you need this, because it will take a while. As horselydown has said, it is very slow going.

Except for the extreme right of the first page, the image is rather better on Ancestry, where it is indexed as the will of Ane Peese (misreading of atte leese)

[Vance Mead]

Richard atte Lese was in a court case in Common Pleas in 1377.

Kent. atte Bregge, Christine, formerly wife of John, versus atte Lese, Richard, knight; Munde, John, of Canterbury. Dower

Index:
https://waalt.uh.edu/index.php/CP40/466

Kent. Christine atte Bregge, formerly wife of John atte Bregge, versus Richard atte Lese, knight, for property in Petham, including half of a messuage, 40 acres arable, 300 acres pasture, 200 acres wood; John Munde, of Canterbury, dower, for half of a messuage in Canterbury, as dower of John her former husbandman in gavelkind tenure.

original:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no466/bCP40no466dorses/IMG_1055.htm

[horselydown86]

Does the will give any names for the filiolos and filiolas or just identifies them as that?

Marayong; sorry, I forgot to answer this question.  No names are given for the filiolos and filiolas.

Further on this, the Revised Medieval Latin Word-List is the reference which confirms godsons and goddaughters are the meanings.

Bookbox, thanks for completing this document.  I'm not at all unhappy to have an evening free from it.