Help reading a 1790's will

[Máguari]

I think that I still don’t grasp the ‘copy theory.’

In effect, in 1858 the NA was given copyright on a bunch of probate court documents, including court copies of wills, because a law passed at that time eliminated the old courts and instituted a new system. The NA is still the copyright holder on the copies of these older wills. Copies of more recent wills are held elsewhere.

So really, it was meaningless for the NA to mention that “Copyright in a will or codicil is normally vested in the testator, and passes (unless otherwise assigned) to his or her heirs” because the NA does not deal in wills it deals in ‘copies’ of wills - about which there is some hair splitting difference.

How is the copy different from the original? What information does it contain that is not in the original? One would assume that great care was taken to ensure that the court copy was a faithful reproduction of the original. In this day and age, it would be identical because it would have been printed off from the same digital file. So what is the information that the NA or the records office holds copyright on as opposed to the information that the author of the will or his heirs hold copyright on?

I have in my possession a copy of a modern will [1924] purchased from the York Probate Sub-Registry. They sent me a copy of the will itself and a copy of the accompanying court document in which the will was proved and registered at the probate court. The cover letter that came with these documents mentioned no restrictions on their use or reproduction. I can see that the crown would hold the copyright on the court document but, as for the will itself, there is nothing to indicate that it is a “court copy” - no stamps, no seals, no annotations, nothing at all. It is simply a copy of the original whose copyright is held by some descendant of the person who wrote the will. So what exactly is copyrighted by the crown?

[JAP1]

Hi Bo Peep , Of course I must accept your ruling that, if a Moderator (Geoffers on this occasion) states that we are not allowed to do something, that's that. That's your ruling, it's your Forum, and we love you for the Forum.

Several of us were/are obviously interested in discussing the pros & cons of Geoffers's ruling &, perhaps, exploring his expertise - and also discussing what the published TNA statements really mean. But if it's not allowed, it's not allowed. Such is life.

However, I'm posting now solely because I'd really like to say that I do hope that newcomer Dellamar will not be deterred by the correspondence on this thread. Dellamar, if by any chance there are still difficult words remaining, please do submit extracts of images of them (with transcriptions) so that we can all try to help. That's permitted! Good luck, Dellamar!

Kindest regards to all,

JAP