Bruce wrote: << "On certain manors, the custom of "Borough English" prevailed. This required that the copyholder's land must go to his youngest rather than his eldest son as was the case in the common-law usage. Mr. Copinger has estimated that as many as eighty manors in Suffolk were governed by this custom (The English Yeoman, pp. 128-9)." >> Those "certain" manors where Borough English was the custom in the Middle Ages were primarily in Suffolk, Surrey, Middlesex, and Sussex. By the seventeenth century, some (if not many) of them had adopted primogeniture, as a pparently had _all_ Wiltshire manors. << Borough English aside it may be that William Carpenter(1) was bound neither by primogeniture nor any other system as Campbell states above. >> William1 wasn't "bound" by the law of primogeniture, Borough English, gavelkind, or any other system of inheritance. Any such system was used only in cases of intestacy (including, presumably, instances in which an intestate copyholder failed to name an inheriting co-tenant in the manorial record). He was free to name as co-tenant anyone he chose. My point was that primogeniture was not only a principle of common law but also a cultural value that influenced discretionary behavior. << Perhaps a careful look at the manor survey on the whole will reveal something? >> I have only page 7 of the manor survey, which contains the record of the Carpenter copyhold and one other. But my impression is that Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office archivist Andrew Crookston's position--that the eldest son was typically the co-tenant named in Westcourt Manor copyhold records--is based on just such a review. It should be recalled, moreover, that I presented additional reasons for concluding that William2 was probably his father's eldest (if not only) son (see "Re: [CARPENTER] eldest/youngest," CARPENTER Digest, Vol 2, Issue 198). Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com