Tricky Latin text - 1681 will

[Lewis21]

Hi all,

I have found the will of Bartholomew Kelsie of Slindon, Sussex, dated 1681. The main text is easy enough to read with a bit of concentration however I am struggling with what is written on the back, mostly in Latin. It's not a formula I am familiar with. I know from the will text that Bartholomew left legacies to his daughter Joan's children, William and Sarah Blunden.

I can't really make out some of the words. Can anybody decipher what it means when read as a whole?

Many thanks,

Lewis

[Bookbox]

Who was the named executor, please?

[Lewis21]

Who was the named executor, please?

Their names were Richard Newland and Richard Smyth, who were stated to be his cousins and/or friends.

[Bookbox]

Thanks.
I think it is saying that the executors renounced, and administration with the will annexed was granted to William Blunden, husband of Joan Blunden otherwise Kelsey, who was Sarah Blunden's natural father. Would that fit with what you have elsewhere?

[Bookbox]

The clauses were originally written in the wrong order, which doesn't help.

The underlined part, from maritus to filiae, is marked as an insertion after dicti defuncti. So I think this is how it works:

8^o Dec: 1681

Will(el)mus Blunden ^pater naturalis & Guardian(us) Sarae Blunden Nepotis^ d(i)c(t)i def(unc)ti, maritus et conjunct' person' Joannae Blunden

alias Kelsey filiae [unicae - deleted], ac Legatarie in Testamento &c nominate

& ex(ecuto)ribus fiducie prius renuncian(tibus) ac Ad(ministra)tor &c cu(m) Tes(tamen)to

annexo &c [iure … Jurat' - all deleted]            p(er) me Tho: Briggs

8 December 1681
William Blunden, the natural father and guardian of Sarah Blunden the granddaughter of the said deceased, [and] the husband and conjunct of Joan Blunden otherwise Kelsey, [who is] the [only deleted] daughter of the said deceased and a legatee named in the will etc., the executors having first renounced the trust, [is the] administrator etc., with the will annexed etc.   By me Thomas Briggs

[Lewis21]

The clauses were originally written in the wrong order, which doesn't help.

The underlined part, from maritus to filiae, is marked as an insertion after dicti defuncti. So I think this is how it works:

8^o Dec: 1681

Will(el)mus Blunden ^pater naturalis & Guardian(us) Sarae Blunden Nepotis^ d(i)c(t)i def(unc)ti, maritus et conjunct' person' Joannae Blunden

alias Kelsey filiae [unicae - deleted], ac Legatarie in Testamento &c nominate

& ex(ecuto)ribus fiducie prius renuncian(tibus) ac Ad(ministra)tor &c cu(m) Tes(tamen)to

annexo &c [iure … Jurat' - all deleted]            p(er) me Tho: Briggs

8 December 1681
William Blunden, the natural father and guardian of Sarah Blunden the granddaughter of the said deceased, [and] the husband and conjunct of Joan Blunden otherwise Kelsey, [who is] the [only deleted] daughter of the said deceased and a legatee named in the will etc., the executors having first renounced the trust, [is the] administrator etc., with the will annexed etc.   By me Thomas Briggs

Bookbox,

This is great, thanks very much for your efforts. It all fits with what I know, i.e. that Joan was Bartholomew's daughter, who married William Blunden and had a daughter Sarah, who was mentioned in the will.

As far I can tell from the records Joan was Bartholomew's only daughter, it's interesting that they crossed that bit out.

I wonder what might have caused the executors to renounce their position.

Thanks again,

Lewis

[Bookbox]

I wonder what might have caused the executors to renounce their position.

Possibly they weren't asked before being nominated by the testator? Or they were too busy, or they weren't competent, or they lived some distance away, or ...