In the first in a series of case studies on our search service, Archive Assistant Robert Lee takes a look at a search request to show what a will transcription may involve.

Transcribing wills is not always an easy endeavour, and it can be a lengthy process, though never boring. One request was recently commissioned by David Howe, a historical researcher in America, for the transcript of two wills from the 16^th century. They concern a Thomas Wallys (1552 – D/AEW 2/413) and a Thomas Welles (1555 – D/AEW 3/99) respectively, both of Stanford Rivers. This search was an attempt to untie an old genealogical mystery regarding David’s 10^th Great Grandfather Robert Howe (1571-1637). Robert’s father John Howe (1540-92) married Joan Welles (1540-1617) in 1560 in Bobbingworth, but the trail goes dark beyond Joan’s parentage. These wills were selected with a view to establishing Thomas Welles/Wellys as Joan’s father.

There were several reasons why these transcriptions were a somewhat difficult task. Notwithstanding idiosyncrasies in word abbreviations, general deviations from established forms of handwriting, and defects in the paper itself, wills are packed with historical and theological allusions. One is introduced to legal and monarchical nuances now well past obsolete. It is a great pleasure to be able to examine them at this level of detail. My early modern British history is wanting, but to look so intimately into the lives of those who experienced it is the most helpful method of revision.

The will of Thomas Wallys was composed in 1552, during the reign of Edward VI. As the will begins:

This format will be familiar: an introduction which appeals to God and the reigning monarch. We see the first of a few abbreviations here, note the use of r[es]pect and sup[re]me. The year is not given explicitly (not as a cardinal number), rather as the fifth regnal year of Edward VI (being 28 January 1551 – 27 January 1552). Thomas bequeaths his soul unto God, and shares out his livestock and money amongst his children. His two sons are promised:

1. ii Hen and
2. fyve marks in money to be delivered… at the age of xxi years…

and three daughters promised:

14. ii hen and fortye shilynge
15. agree to be delyvered to them & either of them at the day of theyre maryages.

Filial inequality aside, we can observe uses of the silent e (‘fortye’ & ‘shylinge’; ‘maye’ and ‘reigne’ in the previous lines), and parallel use of i and y, both common in early modern English. Like the regnal year, monetary values are written as roman numerals and other amounts are mostly given in word form. Whilst Arabic numerals had been introduced in England some centuries before this will, they had not yet taken on ubiquity, and as such roman numerals were preferred by scribes. A ‘Mark’ is a monetary value equivalent to 13 shillings and 4 pence (or 2/3 of a pound).

One section that caused some confusion is his initial bequest.

The handwriting here is particularly difficult, but we concluded that this states:

Thomas here bequeaths money toward the upkeep of the roads in Stanford Rivers. The monetary value ostensibly reads as xxxiiii S (34 shillings) and viii d (8 pence), but on second glance it may be more complex. 34 shillings is an odd value, given that 20 shillings make up a pound: i li xiv S viii d (1 pound, 14 shillings, 8 pence) might make more sense. What is more, the symbol after 34 more resembles an R (Perhaps a reader can clarify this?).

Some other interesting extracts:

A weanell calfe is a young calf, six to seven months old, that has been “weaned” from its mother, and is thus on a diet of grass rather than its mother’s milk.

A verbose passage. It appears to be saying, simply: My wife can have my lease so long as my landlord agrees and so long as she doesn’t marry again. One is often reminded of the adage that scriveners of this period were “paid by the line”.

The subsequent will for Thomas Welles, though dated only three years hence in 1555, is immediately different. As it begins:

As the seasoned historian will observe, this deluge of titles is indicative of the royal marriage which had recently taken place between Mary I of England and Phillip II of Spain. The titles reflect the royal domains which were granted because of this marriage, which is believed to have been foremost a political endeavour.

And furthermore we can find historical, if domestic, idiosyncrasies, particularly with the inventory of goods being bequeathed:

The goods are recognisable (I am still not 100% on what a harness girdle is, though I have learnt not to haphazardly google every phrase that presents itself in historical documents) and perhaps reinforce the stark nature of property and belongings in Early-modern Britain.

Over the course of transcribing this will – penning through indexes of historical trades and picking the brains of my colleagues – I admit I’d initially overlooked the mention of Joan/Joanne Wells, indeed the point of this research to begin with. We agreed that the dates would line up with Joan’s alleged birth year of 1540, and that perhaps this is the person we’re looking for. Unfortunately, the Joan mentioned is unmarried, and thus this will, alone, cannot prove that this Joan married John Howe. As ever, certainty is rarely guaranteed in matters of genealogical history.