Latin - 1522 Admon for John Walleston

[rkraeuatzd]

Hi again,

Any help with correcting and completing my transcription, again heartily appreciated.

I believe this is the earlier unadministered admon for John Walleston that I previously posted about.

Thanks again



Johannes Wallesslypp Walleson decessit intestatus quo die [illegible] Johannes Wallesson filius naturalis et legitimus dicti defuncti cui in forma iuris iurat [illegible] administrando [illegible] et concessit potestatem domino Richard Garrytt curatus [illegible] iurandi Agnete Wallesson relicta dicti defuncti

[Bookbox]

line 2 - quo die (com)p(ar)uit Joh(ann)es ...

line 3 - cui in forma iuris iurat(o) d(omi)n(u)s (com)misit

line 4 - administra(cio)ne(m) &c

line 5 - Ric(ard)o gamyll curat(o) ib(ide)m iurandi agnete(m)

line 6 - Wallesson relicta(m)

(I think the curate is Gamyll rather than Garrytt - it was common to cross through double ells like this at the end of a word.)

So the son John appeared in person to be granted administration, and the local curate was authorised to take the oath of the widow Agnes.

[rkraeuatzd]

Thanks for that Bookbox. Especially interesting to know about the possibility for the local priest to grant admon to Agnes!

I have two final admon entries for John in the same year (in register 8 of records of the commissary court for London).

Would appreciate any help in rounding out this sequence of docs.

Happy New Year!

[rkraeuatzd]

Confess I'm particularly struggling to make any sense out of the second, longer one



Rislipp

Joh[ann]es Waleson decessit vto December [illegible]
[illegible] ad [illegible] 9o die



Rislipp

Johannes Walyson decessit [illegible] Anna Agnes relicta
ad xij Junij  x Julij [illegible]
[illegible] execut 9o  die [illegible]
[illegible] Julij 9o relict [illegible] apptor
certificat pfat Johes [illegible]
[illegible]
[illegible]
[illegible] xvij
[illegible] Augusti [illegible] Johes
[illegible]
[illegible]
[illegible] Agneti relicte
[illegible] in fora jur iurat de
[illegible] defuncti [illegible]
[illegible]
[illegible]
[illegible]

[Bookbox]

Thanks for that Bookbox. Especially interesting to know about the possibility for the local priest to grant admon to Agnes!

No, administration was officially granted by the archdeacon or his representative. The local clergyman would simply be authorised to hear Agnes' oath, which would be recorded and witnessed, and he would then send back certification of that to the church authority.

I will try to get to your other extracts later today.

[rkraeuatzd]

Thanks for that explanation.

I guess the two final entries will further clarify that.

[Bookbox]

1st extract
This is just a cross-reference:

John Walyson has died, 5th December, cause continued to the 9th day of the next [sitting].

(It’s unclear to me whether 5 December is the date of his death, or the date from which the hearing was postponed.)

=====

2nd extract
There is too much damage to reconstruct the original text in any meaningful way, but enough key words are visible to determine the gist:

Ruislip - John Walyson has died. Anna/Agnes was cited to appear as relict, 12 June. On 10 July she appeared with the apparitor (church court official) and claimed that John Penny, the executor named in the will, had declined the executorship, which the apparitor certified. On 19 August John Penny appeared in person and formally renounced the executorship. Administration was then granted to Agnes, who was sworn to administer. An inventory was presented on 2 October, and the probate fee was paid.

(I think the value of the inventory was probably at the start of the last line, where the final d, for pence, is visible.)

[rkraeuatzd]

Hi Bookbox,

Thanks a million for that. Would never have made anything out of that second extract (both extracts came from Register 8 of the Act Books of the Commissary Court of London of 1522).

What now intrigues me most then is this reference to John Penny, the executor named in the will.

In the prior extract we looked at (in register 7 also dated 1522), you may recall that it read that John Walleston was intestate:

Risslypp

Johannes Wallesslypp Walleson decessit intestatus
quo die comparuit Johannes Wallesson filius naturalis et legitimus
dicti defuncti cui in forma iuris iurato dominus commisit
administracionem etc et concessit potestatem domino
Richard Gamyll curato ibidem iurandi Agnete
Wallesson relictam dicti defuncti



I'm now confused whether he was testate or not!

No sign of a will or inventory either during my trawling through records ...

r

[Bookbox]

I'm now confused whether he was testate or not!

I can see the difficulty. While admittedly there has to be some speculation in the one we've just done (because of the damage), there was definitely a will, because there is an executor and a renunciation:

lines 2-3 …  allegavit Johannes Penny esse executor = alleged John Penny to be the executor

lines 5-6 … certificavit quod prefatus Johannes Penny … quod noluit subire onus execucionis testamenti = confirmed that the aforesaid John Penny … that he was not willing to undertake the burden of execution of the will

line 10 … & expresse renunciavit onus = and expressly renounced the burden

So a different John Walyson/Wallesson perhaps, albeit of Ruislip and with a wife named Ann or Agnes?

Are you certain of the years covered by the two registers?

Sorry I can't make other suggestions at the moment.