Dear Bruce, 1) I assume that the following line was a typo? ... Thomas son of Roger Carpenter for 1632-3. Date should be 1332-33 or 1362-63? You wrote: "In the Calendar of Letter Books, a further notation is given for Thomas son of Roger Carpenter for 1632-3. This is interesting because Roger is only 13 or 14 years old." If the date is 1332-33 Roger is about 13-14 years old then this means he would be born about 1319/20? If the date is 1362/63 then Roger being 13-14 would make his birth about 1349/50. Also a previous message you indicated that Roger was alive about "On Ash Wedsday [1 March], 14 Edward III. [A.D. 1339-40]" when the King asked for 20,000 pounds from the nobles. See 2 Oct 1999 E-MAIL. This seems to rule out the 1362/63 variation. "If Richard was the son of Roger and was 13 or 14 at the time of Roger’s demise, then that would put the birth of Richard at about 1335, the usual assumed date of Richard Carpenter’s, father of the Town Clerk, birth." This seems to indicate Roger died circa 1346/1347. You wrote: "20 Jan., 36 Edward III. [a.d. 1362-3], Thomas, son of Roger le Carpenter, spicer, came before Stephen Cavendisshe, the Mayor, and John de Cauntebrigge, the Chamberlain, and acknowledged he had received from Thomas de Brandone, mercer, and Richard Vyncent, Rector of the Church of St. Benedict de Shorhoge, and Adam Fraunceys, mercer, all property due to him on the death of his father, and gave acquittance for the same." This accounting is done when a person comes of legal age, today at age 21. (1362-21= 1341) Thus Thomas son of Roger would have been born about 1341/42. Yet Roger was alive in 1339/40. If Roger was 13 or 14 then he would have been born about 1328/29. If Roger was of Age (21) he would have been born about 1318/19. 2) Does this mean Roger was born before or circa 1318/20 and died sometime after 1339/40? Maybe about 1346? Do you have any other data supporting these dates? Please answer, Your Rehoboth Carpenter Cousin, John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA Bruce E. Carpenter wrote: > > In the Calendar of Letter Books, a further notation is given for Thomas son > of Roger Carpenter for 1632-3. This is interesting because Roger is only 13 > or 14 years old. I had assumed that people received their inheritance at a > much later date. This seems to not be the case. If Richard was the son of > Roger and was 13 or 14 at the time of Roger’s demise, then that would put > the birth of Richard at about 1335, the usual assumed date of Richard > Carpenter’s, father of the Town Clerk, birth. > > “20 Jan., 36 Edward III. [a.d. 1362-3], Thomas, son of Roger le Carpenter, > spicer, came before Stephen Cavendisshe, the Mayor, and John de > Cauntebrigge, the Chamberlain, and acknowledged he had received from Thomas > de Brandone, mercer, and Richard Vyncent, Rector of the Church of St. > Benedict de Shorhoge, and Adam Fraunceys, mercer, all property due to him on > the death of his father, and gave acquittance for the same.” (Calendar, > Letter Book f, p. 200) > > Bruce Carpenter