John: I certainly admire your persistance. However, if you look at the 1441 will of Town Clerk John a bit more carefully you will notice that Richard's other mentioned siblings, that is daughters Joan and Kathrine. They are unmarried and were fully expected to marry by their uncle. This was in a culture and times that people married off women at age fourteen. You might counter that the girls were old maids, but really! Come now John, let us roll over in honorable defeat. Sincerely, Bruce E. Carpenter -----Original Message----- From: John Carpenter <jrcrin001@home.com> To: Bruce E. Carpenter <carp@whidbey.com>; rootsweb-review@rootsweb.com <rootsweb-review@rootsweb.com> Cc: Terry Lee Carpenter <diluvius@flash.net>; John L. Carpenter <familysearcher@mailcity.com> Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Richard Carpenter b. abt. 1392/1389 >Dear Bruce, > >The dates you state are impossible, are indeed quite probable. See >below. > >It is important to note that John the younger's will did not state "age >of majority" or a similar phrase. We know the phrases "of majority" and >"of legal age" was used in that time period. The phrase "full age" is >the question. > >A "full age and mature discretion" is sometime after the age of majority >(age 21 for hundreds of years). In present day legal papers it is >usually defined as attaining a certain age (or sometimes after marriage >or children or some other goal like retirement). > >The retired lawyer I just talked to stated the wills he developed with >the context of a "full age" varied between age 30 and age 60. He will >search later his legal phrase books which has histories of various terms >for us. As a side note, the phrase "full age", has been used primarily >to preserve an estate from the indiscretions of youth. This by keeping >it out of their hands until they are responsible (or of mature >discretion) enough to handle it. > >Without knowing the full context of the will, or what defined a "full >age and mature discretion", we can only assume it was sometime after the >age of majority or after the legal age of 21. > >How was this phrase used in the context of the times? Does any one >know? > >If it was age 50 to 60, then the age for Richard, son of Robert of >Richard & Christina it would then fit about perfectly. > >Since Richard was born about 1392 according to my records (1392 + 21 = >1413) and should be at least age 21 to serve in the "Memorandum of a >mainprise body for body, made in chancery" in November of 1412, this >means his estimated birth year should be about 1391 if not sooner. If >we use the 1410 sponsoring an orphan this means he would have had to be >born by 1389. If you figure his father Robert was about age 18 or 20 >when he had Richard (1389 - 18 = 1371 / 1389 - 20 = 1369), you can see >that the estimate of Robert's birth is about correct in 1368. > >Is it possible to get a complete copy of his will? All I have is >extracts. > >Sincerely, > >John R. Carpenter >La Mesa, CA > >Bruce E. Carpenter wrote: >> >> John: >> in Town Clerk John's 1441 will he refers to his brother Robert's son Richard >> thusly, "Also I give and bequelth to my kinsman Richard, son of my brother >> Robert,for the increase of his estate when he shall arrive at full age and >> mature discretion...." >> Thus those 1390s dates for Roberts children are impossible. >> Sincerely, >> Bruce E. Carpenter >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Carpenter <jrcrin001@home.com> >> To: Bruce E. Carpenter <carp@whidbey.com> >> Cc: CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com <CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com>; John L. Carpenter >> <familysearcher@mailcity.com>; Richard L. Carpenter >> <adoptahighway1@home.com>; Terry Lee Carpenter <diluvius@flash.net> >> Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 10:38 AM >> Subject: Re: Chaundelers and Chandlers #2 >> >> >Dear Bruce, >> > >> >Continuing from the end of the last E-message ... >> > >> >If Richard Carpenter -86 (who married Christina) died in 1395, who was >> >the Richard Carpenter noted in the November 1412 record? >> > >> >In searching my records I have ... >> > >> > >> > +---¦Richard CARPENTER-86 >> >Robert CARPENTER-14719 ¦ ¦Abt 1335 >> >Abt 1368 ----------¦ ¦of London,Middlesex,England >> >of London,Middlesex,England ¦ MRIN:18 >> > --SPOUSE-- MRIN:5247 +---¦Christina-87 >> > ¦Abt 1335/1337 >> > ¦of London,Middlesex,England >> > --CHILDREN-- >> >1. Alexander CARPENTER-23395 Abt 1389 >> >2. Joan CARPENTER-14721 Abt 1390 >> >3. Richard CARPENTER-4675 1392 >> >4. Katherine CARPENTER-14722 Abt 1395 >> >5. Henry CARPENTER-16314 Abt 1395 >> > >> >The notes for the Richard - 4675 above list: >> >A Goldsmith by trade. In 1410, City of London Records indicate >> >a Richard Carpenter and Johannes Norman, goldsmiths (Chaundelers?) >> >sponsoring an orphan. Apparently this of one of many encouraged by this >> >Robber's Grand-Uncle John Carpenter, the younger, the noted town clerk >> >of London. >> >SEE: "THE CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL" By A. E. Douglas-Smith, 2nd Edition, >> >1965, Oxford. The City of London School for the Poor was endowed by >> >this Richard's uncle, named John or John the younger. On page 2 of the >> >above, it lists that "Richard (gfather) was a chandler living in >> >Billiter Lane in 1381. >> >It also mentions on page 3, that a son named Robert Carpenter, "of whom >> >nothing is known except that he had a son (named) Richard and two >> >daughters (named) Joan and Katherine." This is known by John the >> >younger's will. Other children may have been buried in the graveyard of >> >the Church of St. Martin. >> >end notes. >> > >> >This Richard (noted above) was born in 1392 and would have been about >> >age 22 in November of 1412. Currently, until more data comes in, this >> >was probably the Richard "of Fleetstreet" in 1412. >> > >> >While I am uncomfortable with this, it is logical. In 1410 this Richard >> >Carpenter was known as a "goldsmith." But then in 1412 he was known as >> >"of Fleetstreet." Could he have been a "gold chandler" or a broker for >> >goldsmiths? >> > >> >What do you think? >> > >> >John R. Carpenter >> >La Mesa, CA