Help with transcribing old will please

[Megan Roberts]

I have a long (7 handwritten pages) will from 1736 that I have been trying to transcribe, and I feel that I could do with another pair of eyes / another brain to have a look.

Is there anyone willing to read both the will and my draft of the transcript? If there is I would be so grateful.

[Coromandel]

Hello Megan

I'd be happy to take a look. Can you upload the will and transcript, e.g. to Photobucket or Google Documents?

[Megan Roberts]

I can upload them to Google Docs - just need to know who to share them with.

Thanks so much

[Coromandel]

I don't know how it works, I'm afraid! On another recent thread where some files were successfully made available to anyone via Google Documents, the member just said he 'changed the settings to "share" '. If you're not happy with it being quite that public you can always remove the documents as soon as people here have had a chance to look at them.

[Megan Roberts]

Try this link and see if it works:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-M...UpHa3hOQUZrUzQ

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...QWO51xk28/edit

[Coromandel]

Those links work fine, Megan. It looks like you've done a great job on the transcription. I'll have a look through and see if I can fill in any of the gaps.

[Coromandel]

Hi again Megan. Can you send me a pm with your e-mail address, please, and I'll send you an annotated version of your transcript. Thanks.

[Megan Roberts]

I have now spent a "happy" day ploughing through the correct transcript of this will, and I am not certain what fascinates me more: the mascinations and hypocrisy of the Will writer, or the speed with which Coromandel turned it around. On balance I think the latter.

For those wondering what I mean by "mascinations and hypocrisy" in brief the testator, David Gambold, had a "natural and reputed" son and daughter by his servant, both of whom were minors at the time. He left money for his daughter which she was to have at 21 or when married, after that she got nothing more. The son got the bulk of the estate providing he lived to 18. In the event that he did not and he did not have "lawful" children then his share went to a cousin, and if that cousin was dead, and did not have lawful children it then went to other cousins or David G's sisters. It never reverted to David's daughter. The hypocrisy of course is the insistance that his son and nephew had to have lawful heirs - no natural and reputed ones for them! The mascinations are that it is so intent on trying to cover ever conceivable situation that the transcript covers 6 typewritten pages.