I've just had a thought that I'd like to explore with you in order to see whether it makes sense and whether it could be applied further. I looked back tonight at one little enigma about my family. This is described in detail here: http://rumbutter.info/gen-cumb-cd-fam-dickinson-of-streetgate/john-1644 A brief summary. My ancestor John Dickinson (died 1644) was a bondsman for a William Dickinson (probate 1614). These two came from separate families (in a single parish and manor) where any potential surname relationship is too far back generationally to explain the bondsman role as a family one. John had married an Annas Richardson in 1595; and a George Richardson of Camerton (a parish some miles away) owed William money for three sheep in 1614. I had thought that this might indicate some complex marriage/commerce relationship between Richardsons and Dickinsons. Now I'm thinking it's a simple transaction. John wanted a dowry in marriage negotiations. William wanted to sell his surplus sheep. George bought the sheep and gave them to John, without paying William. William dies, so John becomes a bondsmen to ensure the repayment of the dowry debt. This is now a local issue, likely to be settled quickly, rather than an inter-parochial one. Does that make sense? And might that be a fairly common procedure? If so, I (and others) might find inventory debts more revealing. Chris

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 00:50:27 UTC, Chris Dickinson wrote: > I've just had a thought that I'd like to explore with you in order to see whether it makes sense and whether it could be applied further. > > I looked back tonight at one little enigma about my family. This is described in detail here: > > http://rumbutter.info/gen-cumb-cd-fam-dickinson-of-streetgate/john-1644 > > > A brief summary. My ancestor John Dickinson (died 1644) was a bondsman for a William Dickinson (probate 1614). These two came from separate families (in a single parish and manor) where any potential surname relationship is too far back generationally to explain the bondsman role as a family one. > > John had married an Annas Richardson in 1595; and a George Richardson of Camerton (a parish some miles away) owed William money for three sheep in 1614. I had thought that this might indicate some complex marriage/commerce relationship between Richardsons and Dickinsons. > > Now I'm thinking it's a simple transaction. John wanted a dowry in marriage negotiations. William wanted to sell his surplus sheep. George bought the sheep and gave them to John, without paying William. William dies, so John becomes a bondsmen to ensure the repayment of the dowry debt. This is now a local issue, likely to be settled quickly, rather than an inter-parochial one. > > Does that make sense? > > And might that be a fairly common procedure? If so, I (and others) might find inventory debts more revealing. > > Chris Hello Chris, what you suggest must be possible, I guess, but it seems a bit unlikely to me. Surely the simplest explanation is the most probable - that George Richardson's purchase of 3 sheep from William Dickinson in or before 1614 was a simple and rather minor commercial transaction, unconnected to the marriage in 1595 of Annas Richardson (not necessarily related to George, if I have understood correctly) to John Dickinson (not related to William). Matt Tompkins PS I was up your way at Christmas, staying with my sister just outside Cockermouth. It was damp!