1627 Probate - help with Latin please

[sticksville]

There are two register copies of the will of Clement Kitchingman, draper of Norwich in the National Archives, which I have been able to transcribe save the odd name. The copies of the will are in different hands but identical.

I would be grateful if someone could help me with the probate wording which follows the wills, which differ significantly

The second one dated 28 January 1627 appears to be standard, granting administration to Clement's son and executor John. PROB 11/153/79 https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D888969

The first one dated 3 December  1627 is much longer than usual. It mentions George Kitchingman in addition to his brother John. As well as my usual difficulty with Latin, the film seems somewhat blurry.
PROB 11/152/779   https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D890590

I have attached a limited screenshot to avoid copyright infringement but hopefully you will be able to download the full document from the National Archive.

Thank you again for your help.





By way of context, in his will Clement paid off George's debts to other relatives and left him an annuity. However, he evidently anticipated difficulties with George, as his legacy  was to be null and void if he troubled or sued his mother or brother John.

[horselydown86]

The short answer is that the December copy of the will wasn't proved and the Latin which follows isn't a probate clause.

It is a Sentence in the PCC, which records that son George challenged the probate process against son John.

I can't easily decipher the basis of the challenge.  However it was unsuccessful and John remained the executor; as can also be seen in the probate clause for the later copy.

I do know that Sentences are mostly boilerplate and not worth translating in full.

[sticksville]

Thank you HD.

That confirms my suspicions about George. If anyone can make out the basis of his challenge, I'd appreciate it.

[Bookbox]

The basis of the challenge is not stated, only the final result.

[sticksville]

Thank you Bookbox.

George and John appear to have reconciled. George took on John's son as an apprentice a few years later and left loving brother John 20s for a ring in his 1659 will.

[Bookbox]

It is worth noting, however, that it was John who brought the case to court, not George. Under the circumstances that you mention in the will, John was probably seeking a formal confirmation from the court of his right to the executorship, to preclude a possible challenge from George or anyone else.

[sticksville]

Ah that is subtle but interesting.

[Bookbox]

The relevant section is (from line 7) …

… inter Johannem Kitchingman filium naturalem et legitimum et executorem Testamenti sive ultime voluntatis

dicti defuncti partem huiusmodi negotium promoventem ex una et Georgium Kitchingman filium naturalem et legitimum dicti

defuncti in speciale ac omnes et singulos alios ius titulum aut interesse in testamento seu in bonis iuribus aut creditis

eiusdem defuncti habentes seu habere pretendentes in genere partes contra quas huiusmodi negotium promovetur partibus ex altera ...

… between John Kitchingman, the natural and lawful son and the executor of the testament or last will of the said deceased, the party promoting this matter on the one side, and George Kitchingman, the natural and lawful son of the said deceased in particular, and all and singular others in general having or claiming to have a right, title or interest in the will or in the goods, rights or credits of the same deceased, the parties against whom this matter has been promoted on the other side ...

[sticksville]

Excellent