Thank you very much, John. It's good to know that I'm not going mad or have mistranslated things. I shall now have to go back to those pages which didn't have the date in numerals and fix up the ones I translated without knowing about Charles' habit. Cheers, Alwynne ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz> To: "Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au>; <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Charles ll and Regnal Dates > "Charles II reckoned his regnal years from 30 Jan 1649 (the date of the > execution of Charles I) but did not reign in England until his > restoration, 29 May 1660. During the Commonwealth public documents were > dated according to the year of our Lord. Oliver Cromwell died 3 Sept 1658, > richard Cromwell abdicated 25 May 1659, after which the government was > carried on by Parliament and the Army until the restoration" > Harvey's "The Oxford Companion to English Literature" has useful tables of > the Perpetual Calendar at the back, giving regnal years and more. > > Lambeth Palace convocation of bishops is considering restoring the 1662 or > earlier Prayerbook. They may be able to avoid having to include the church > services for the restoration of Charles II, Martyrdom of Chas. I, and the > deliverance of parliament (Gunpowder Treason) service held on Nov. 5th, > which were not abolished till 1859, on the grounds that, although included > by Royal Command, they were never actually part of the prayerbook. This > argument does not however apply to the touching ceremony for the King's > Evil (scrofula), which may entail the Queen in considerable work and > expense in hanging gold coins round necks, if the disease is still > prevalent. > Regnal years have always been at the whim or spite of the monarch. > Sotheby's sold a document signed by Queen Jane (who reigned 9 days) in the > 70's. But Mary ignored her reignin reckoning her regnal years. There are > quite a lot of such confusing anomalies to puzzle the archivist. > > John Barton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:19 PM > Subject: [OEL] Charles ll and Regnal Dates > > >>I have been translating pages from a manor roll and have discovered an >> apparent discepancy in the way the regnal dates are written. >> Often only the regnal date occurs, and I have been happily translating, >> thinking I had it right. However several of these pages also have the >> year >> in numerals, and it doesn't tally with the regnal date. For example, I >> have >> the decimo quinto year of the reign of Charles ll, followed by 1663. the >> same occurs for succeeding years, sixteen, seventeen and so on. >> The only explanation that I can think of is that the regnal date has been >> calculated for Charles ll as beginning in 1649, the year of the death of >> Charles l, and not 1660, the year of Charles ll's acession. This would >> tally >> with the numeral dates. >> Can anyone please tell me if I am right about this, and whether or not it >> was common paractice? The blurb I have on regnal dates doesn't mention >> it. >> With thanks, >> Alwynne >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> __________ NOD32 3443 (20080915) Information __________ >> >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >> http://www.eset.com >> >> > >

I have been translating pages from a manor roll and have discovered an apparent discepancy in the way the regnal dates are written. Often only the regnal date occurs, and I have been happily translating, thinking I had it right. However several of these pages also have the year in numerals, and it doesn't tally with the regnal date. For example, I have the decimo quinto year of the reign of Charles ll, followed by 1663. the same occurs for succeeding years, sixteen, seventeen and so on. The only explanation that I can think of is that the regnal date has been calculated for Charles ll as beginning in 1649, the year of the death of Charles l, and not 1660, the year of Charles ll's acession. This would tally with the numeral dates. Can anyone please tell me if I am right about this, and whether or not it was common paractice? The blurb I have on regnal dates doesn't mention it. With thanks, Alwynne

<<My only comment would be that Robert Foxteghe need not necessarily have bequeathed the land (ie left it by will) - the land might also have gone to the three sisters by operation of the law of inheritance.>> Or he might have transferred it to them all in his lifetime, or indeed it may have been settled on them all by someone else. There are quite a few possibilities - and the two halves of the property may have been dealt with in different ways. Matt

Hello Keith, your interpretation looks exactly right to me. My only comment would be that Robert Foxteghe need not necessarily have bequeathed the land (ie left it by will) - the land might also have gone to the three sisters by operation of the law of inheritance. I suppose it would be possible for one of the Agneses to have been some other relation to Robert Foxteghe than a daughter (grand-daughter? niece? sister?), but by far the most probable explanation must be that all three co-heiresses were sisters. It was not unknown for men to have two children of the same name. It is sometimes said that all occurrences of siblings with the same name must have been the children of different mothers, and that may be true of the modern period, but I do know of at least one famous example from the medieval period (from the same century as this Fine) - the two sons of William Paston, born 1421 and 1436, were both called John. They appear to have had the same mother, Agnes Barry, who married William in 1420 and did not die until 1479. Matt Tompkins ________________________________________ From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Keith Griffiths [griffiths370@btinternet.com] Sent: 24 August 2008 16:10 To: Old English mailing list Subject: [OEL] Interpretation of a Fine I have a record of the foot of a Fine. It reads: (Piece 364) Octave of Michaelmas 9 Henry IV Querelents. Hamon de Goudhurst and William atte Helle Deforciants. Edmund Rolf and wife Agnes, Thomas Chylton and wife Agnes and Richard Wodeman and wife Margery A messuage, 16 acres land, 24 acres pasture, 1 1/2 acres wood and 6 acres heath in Elmestede and Waltham. Quitclaim: (as to 8 acres land, 10 acres pasture 1/2 acre wood and the heath) from Edmund and Agnes, Thomas and Agnes, Richard and Margery and the heirs of Agnes, Agnes and Margery to Hamon and William and the heirs of Hamon. To remain: (as to the messuage, 8 acres land, 14 acres pasture and 1 acre wood held for life by Margery late wife of Robert Foxteghe of the inheritance of Agnes, Agnes and Margery with reversion to Edmund and Agnes, Thomas and Agnes, Richard and Margery and the heirs of Agnes, Agnes and Margery) after the death of Margery late wife of Robert to Hamon and William and the heirs of Hamon. Warrant: against the heirs of Agnes, Agnes and Margery. Hamon and William gave 100 marks. My interpretation of it is: In 1408 Hamon de Goudhurst and William of Helle gave 100 marks for a messuage, 16 acres of land, 24 acres of pasture, 1 1/2 acres of wood and 6 acres of heath in Elmestede and Waltham. It was bought from Edmund Rolf and his wife Agnes, Thomas Chylton and his wife Agnes and Richard Wodeman and his wife Margery. It seems that the land and property was once owned by Robert Foxteghe. He bequeathed one part equally to his three daughters Agnes, Agnes and Margery and the other part to his wife Margery for her natural life then to his three daughters. The daughters married respectively Edmund Rolf, Thomas Chylton and Richard Wodeman. The holding of 8 acres land, 10 acres pasture, 1/2 acre wood and the heath were to be transferred immediately to Hamon and William. The remainder - the messuage, 8 acres of land, 14 acres of pasture and 1 acre of wood - would go to Hamon and William after the death of Margery. I should be grateful for another opinion particularly about the fact that Robert Foxtegh had two daughters called Agnes which seems odd. ~~ Keith Griffiths

I have a record of the foot of a Fine. It reads: (Piece 364) Octave of Michaelmas 9 Henry IV Querelents. Hamon de Goudhurst and William atte Helle Deforciants. Edmund Rolf and wife Agnes, Thomas Chylton and wife Agnes and Richard Wodeman and wife Margery A messuage, 16 acres land, 24 acres pasture, 1 1/2 acres wood and 6 acres heath in Elmestede and Waltham. Quitclaim: (as to 8 acres land, 10 acres pasture 1/2 acre wood and the heath) from Edmund and Agnes, Thomas and Agnes, Richard and Margery and the heirs of Agnes, Agnes and Margery to Hamon and William and the heirs of Hamon. To remain: (as to the messuage, 8 acres land, 14 acres pasture and 1 acre wood held for life by Margery late wife of Robert Foxteghe of the inheritance of Agnes, Agnes and Margery with reversion to Edmund and Agnes, Thomas and Agnes, Richard and Margery and the heirs of Agnes, Agnes and Margery) after the death of Margery late wife of Robert to Hamon and William and the heirs of Hamon. Warrant: against the heirs of Agnes, Agnes and Margery. Hamon and William gave 100 marks. My interpretation of it is: In 1408 Hamon de Goudhurst and William of Helle gave 100 marks for a messuage, 16 acres of land, 24 acres of pasture, 1 1/2 acres of wood and 6 acres of heath in Elmestede and Waltham. It was bought from Edmund Rolf and his wife Agnes, Thomas Chylton and his wife Agnes and Richard Wodeman and his wife Margery. It seems that the land and property was once owned by Robert Foxteghe. He bequeathed one part equally to his three daughters Agnes, Agnes and Margery and the other part to his wife Margery for her natural life then to his three daughters. The daughters married respectively Edmund Rolf, Thomas Chylton and Richard Wodeman. The holding of 8 acres land, 10 acres pasture, 1/2 acre wood and the heath were to be transferred immediately to Hamon and William. The remainder - the messuage, 8 acres of land, 14 acres of pasture and 1 acre of wood - would go to Hamon and William after the death of Margery. I should be grateful for another opinion particularly about the fact that Robert Foxtegh had two daughters called Agnes which seems odd. ~~ Keith Griffiths

Hello Renee >From what I can tell from your messages on this, there are two values mentioned - 1000 lbs. tob[acco] and £30 in money. You seem to be talking about both these amounts as being pounds weight in your last message but it looks to me in your first message that it is £30 [30 pounds cash]. As you also mention, what was happening could hinge upon the price of tobacco as well as the value of land. I am rather confused. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Renee" <dennis.newman@cox.net> To: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk>; <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold > Matt, > Thanks! I guess it will be one more thing I can't figure out. I can't > find > good documentation on tobacco prices, as they fluctuated so much, year to > year. But it seems like that would be worth quite a bit of money, which > has > been my problem with the deed. I could see a token amount, just as > payment > to go to court and quitclaim. > > After he paid them a 1000 lbs of tobacco, he sold the property to his > brother for 30 lbs, if 30 lbs was the real value, then maybe 1000 lbs of > tobacco was worth around 30 lbs??? but my understanding is that, that was > still more money than the average colonist made in a years time. > > Thanks again, > Renee > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> > To: "'Renee'" <dennis.newman@cox.net> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:12 AM > Subject: RE: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold > > > Dear Renee, > > this beats me. It is a little odd for someone who sold land in 1673 to > execute a confirmatory conveyance in 1710, but not particularly so (land > and > inheritance law was so complex there were always little uncertainties of > title which could be removed by a release or quitclaim), but what is > surprising is the large price paid for it. Or at least I presume 1,000 > lbs > of tobacco represented a large price - it sounds a lot. > > Perhaps the 1673 conveyance was so seriously defective in some technical > respect that Eliza still had her original interest and John Wilkins was in > effect having to buy it again, for its full value. But that's just > speculation - I have no real answer. Sorry. > > Best wishes, > > Matt > > -----Original Message----- > From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Renee > Sent: 18 August 2008 18:13 > To: OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com > Subject: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold > > This deed is actually from Virginia but I thought it should be the same > principal. > > This involves property which was sold in 1673 (no original deed, most > records for this county were burned during the Civil War). > > This is from court records > > "I, John Wicket and Eliza my wife, of Westover Parish, Prince George Co., > planter, for 1000 lbs tob, paid by John Wilkins for all their right in a > tract of land in same parish and county, 303 acres on south side of the > Great Swamp, bounded by Mr. Cogan, land of Capt. Tye, line of Richard > Pace, > given to him by Richard Baker; siad land being a part of the land that > belonged to Richard Baker, and conveyed John Jane and wife Eliza (now wife > of said John Wicket) to William Wilkins, dec'd, on 10 Jan. 1673." > dated 14 April, 1710, signed John Wicket, Eliza Wicket. Recorded 8 May > 1711. > > Then there is this deed > Charles Wilkins, for 30 pounds deeds to John Wilkins 303 acres....... as > deed made by John Jean & Eliza his wife dated 19 Jan 1673. Land given to > Charles Wilkins by will of William Wilkins, dated 22 Aug. 1705. > Nov. 13 1710. There are a few other entries where the family members give > Francis Wilkins, their brother, power of attorney to turn the land over to > John Wilkins. > > My question is what interest would Eliza Jean-Wicket and her husband have > in > this land 37 years later. I could understand if they were just clarifying > that the land had been sold to William Wilkins, but they are quit claiming > and being paid 1000 lbs of tobacco. Does this maybe mean Eliza had an > interest in the land, maybe as an heir of William Wilkins? I know John > Jean/Jane had a male heir, so if something were due to John, money or > interest in the land, it would go to his son, would it not? > > Thanks for any thoughts on this, > > Renee > > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1626 - Release Date: 21/08/2008 > 18:54 > > >

Audrey, Hi! Sorry, if I can make the sign for a pound on my computer, I don't know how. I didn't mean that 1000 pounds of tobacco and the 30 pounds were weights, I meant maybe 1000 pounds of tobacco was worth about 30 pounds English money at that time. Matt had thought that 1000 pounds of tobacco was probably worth a lot, what I meant to say in replying was that I couldn't find a good example of pricing of tobacco per pound or per "hogshead" as it was usually sold, because the price did go up and down, it fell in the later part of the seventeenth century, drastically from what I've read. Some Virginian's (and others)at the time would only take English pounds (or some Spanish Silver) because of the instability of the tobacco prices, etc... Hope that clears it up. Renee ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Lee" <alee231@btinternet.com> To: "Renee" <dennis.newman@cox.net>; "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk>; <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold > Hello Renee > > From what I can tell from your messages on this, there are two values > mentioned - 1000 lbs. tob[acco] and £30 in money. You seem to be talking > about both these amounts as being pounds weight in your last message but > it looks to me in your first message that it is £30 [30 pounds cash]. As > you also mention, what was happening could hinge upon the price of tobacco > as well as the value of land. I am rather confused. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renee" <dennis.newman@cox.net> > To: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk>; <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:24 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold > > >> Matt, >> Thanks! I guess it will be one more thing I can't figure out. I can't >> find >> good documentation on tobacco prices, as they fluctuated so much, year to >> year. But it seems like that would be worth quite a bit of money, which >> has >> been my problem with the deed. I could see a token amount, just as >> payment >> to go to court and quitclaim. >> >> After he paid them a 1000 lbs of tobacco, he sold the property to his >> brother for 30 lbs, if 30 lbs was the real value, then maybe 1000 lbs of >> tobacco was worth around 30 lbs??? but my understanding is that, that was >> still more money than the average colonist made in a years time. >> >> Thanks again, >> Renee >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> >> To: "'Renee'" <dennis.newman@cox.net> >> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:12 AM >> Subject: RE: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold >> >> >> Dear Renee, >> >> this beats me. It is a little odd for someone who sold land in 1673 to >> execute a confirmatory conveyance in 1710, but not particularly so (land >> and >> inheritance law was so complex there were always little uncertainties of >> title which could be removed by a release or quitclaim), but what is >> surprising is the large price paid for it. Or at least I presume 1,000 >> lbs >> of tobacco represented a large price - it sounds a lot. >> >> Perhaps the 1673 conveyance was so seriously defective in some technical >> respect that Eliza still had her original interest and John Wilkins was >> in >> effect having to buy it again, for its full value. But that's just >> speculation - I have no real answer. Sorry. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Matt >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Renee >> Sent: 18 August 2008 18:13 >> To: OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold >> >> This deed is actually from Virginia but I thought it should be the same >> principal. >> >> This involves property which was sold in 1673 (no original deed, most >> records for this county were burned during the Civil War). >> >> This is from court records >> >> "I, John Wicket and Eliza my wife, of Westover Parish, Prince George Co., >> planter, for 1000 lbs tob, paid by John Wilkins for all their right in a >> tract of land in same parish and county, 303 acres on south side of the >> Great Swamp, bounded by Mr. Cogan, land of Capt. Tye, line of Richard >> Pace, >> given to him by Richard Baker; siad land being a part of the land that >> belonged to Richard Baker, and conveyed John Jane and wife Eliza (now >> wife >> of said John Wicket) to William Wilkins, dec'd, on 10 Jan. 1673." >> dated 14 April, 1710, signed John Wicket, Eliza Wicket. Recorded 8 May >> 1711. >> >> Then there is this deed >> Charles Wilkins, for 30 pounds deeds to John Wilkins 303 acres....... as >> deed made by John Jean & Eliza his wife dated 19 Jan 1673. Land given to >> Charles Wilkins by will of William Wilkins, dated 22 Aug. 1705. >> Nov. 13 1710. There are a few other entries where the family members >> give >> Francis Wilkins, their brother, power of attorney to turn the land over >> to >> John Wilkins. >> >> My question is what interest would Eliza Jean-Wicket and her husband have >> in >> this land 37 years later. I could understand if they were just >> clarifying >> that the land had been sold to William Wilkins, but they are quit >> claiming >> and being paid 1000 lbs of tobacco. Does this maybe mean Eliza had an >> interest in the land, maybe as an heir of William Wilkins? I know John >> Jean/Jane had a male heir, so if something were due to John, money or >> interest in the land, it would go to his son, would it not? >> >> Thanks for any thoughts on this, >> >> Renee >> >> >> >> ==================================== >> WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >> ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1626 - Release Date: >> 21/08/2008 18:54 >> >> >> > > >

Rosemay, Hi, I am interested in them, and I've seen some on the Henbury family but I haven't looked at them closely. I know in Henbury, even earlier the Dyer and Jayne family were connected, the 1631 will of John Dyer of Chittinge, Henbury, names his daughter Agnes as the wife of Richard Jayne (they were married there in Nov 1618). I have a Edward Jayne in Thornbury, 1645 who's overseers were John Tayer, John Wither, and in 1600 a Richard Withers, of Littleton on Severn, named his servant, Edward Jayne. I remember reading something quite a while back about a Janes/Jaynes family in Olveston but I don't know anything about them. I have primarily looked at records from 1500's - 1600's, as my ancestors were in Virginia in the 1600's. I've hoped to find some clue as to which Jeanes/Jane family they came from...... I'm still looking. I probably have some more on these families in my notes, somewhere and would be glad to share or work on them with you. I've researched the Someset family quite a bit and just really started in Gloucester. Renee ----- Original Message ----- From: "john king" <randjak@talktalk.net> To: "Renee" <dennis.newman@cox.net>; <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Bristol Marriage Bonds (Renee) > Renee, > I didn't know I was interested in the Jayne family until yesterday when I > found the will of Edward Dyer of Henbury and later Freezewood, > Olveston/Alveston. One of this name married Mary Jayne at Henbury in 1758, > and appears to be involved with a Luke Jayne at Almondsbury. > A William Jayne of Littleton-on-Severn Yeoman was Bondsman for the > marriage of Richard Taylor, and Alice Russell both of Littleton in 1696 > for a marriage at Bristol Cathedral. > I don't know if any of these names are of interest to you? > Rosemary > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renee" <dennis.newman@cox.net> > To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:31 PM > Subject: Re: [B&S] Bristol Marriage Bonds (Renee) > > >> Lindsay, >> Thank you so much! >> >> Sure I'm interested in all of them! >> >> I have this one family that I'm having trouble with. William Jayne who >> died >> in Bristol in1666, owned an Inn that was (or became) the Seven Stars >> (called >> in some records The Sign of the Seven Stars. His son Michael "Jaine" had >> it >> briefly, then his son-in-law Abraham Saunders had it, and this family >> sold >> it to the Hawkins family. >> >> William mentions his sons Michael, William and Roger (and three >> daughters) >> and leaves them quite a large sum of money. I can't find a will for any >> of >> his sons in the PCC. I imagine the Roger in this marriage bond is his >> son, >> otherwise I have found no records for any of them. >> >> Thank You, >> Renee >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lindsay" <lindsay21@aapt.net.au> >> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:52 PM >> Subject: [B&S] Bristol Marriage Bonds (Renee) >> >> >>> Hi Renee, here are the entries for the William,Roger ,Michael,there are >>> a >>> few others if you're interested. >>> >>> 14.8.1686: Richard Jayne. (Jaine) Bristol. Butcher.& AmyKnap. Stoke >>> Gifford .(bondsman Thomas Clarke ) >>> >>> 14.12.1667: William Jayne. St Stephen. cooper & Susan Stokes. St >>> Stephen.(bondsman William Williams) >>> >>> 22.2.1692/3: William Jayne.Bristol. Baker.& Joyce Stone. St >>> Werburgh.(bondsman Arthur Goode) >>> >>> 31.12.1668. Roger Jayne& Mary Broadway >>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1621 - Release Date: >>> 8/19/2008 >>> 6:53 PM >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >>> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >

Matt, Thanks! I guess it will be one more thing I can't figure out. I can't find good documentation on tobacco prices, as they fluctuated so much, year to year. But it seems like that would be worth quite a bit of money, which has been my problem with the deed. I could see a token amount, just as payment to go to court and quitclaim. After he paid them a 1000 lbs of tobacco, he sold the property to his brother for 30 lbs, if 30 lbs was the real value, then maybe 1000 lbs of tobacco was worth around 30 lbs??? but my understanding is that, that was still more money than the average colonist made in a years time. Thanks again, Renee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: "'Renee'" <dennis.newman@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:12 AM Subject: RE: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold Dear Renee, this beats me. It is a little odd for someone who sold land in 1673 to execute a confirmatory conveyance in 1710, but not particularly so (land and inheritance law was so complex there were always little uncertainties of title which could be removed by a release or quitclaim), but what is surprising is the large price paid for it. Or at least I presume 1,000 lbs of tobacco represented a large price - it sounds a lot. Perhaps the 1673 conveyance was so seriously defective in some technical respect that Eliza still had her original interest and John Wilkins was in effect having to buy it again, for its full value. But that's just speculation - I have no real answer. Sorry. Best wishes, Matt -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Renee Sent: 18 August 2008 18:13 To: OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold This deed is actually from Virginia but I thought it should be the same principal. This involves property which was sold in 1673 (no original deed, most records for this county were burned during the Civil War). This is from court records "I, John Wicket and Eliza my wife, of Westover Parish, Prince George Co., planter, for 1000 lbs tob, paid by John Wilkins for all their right in a tract of land in same parish and county, 303 acres on south side of the Great Swamp, bounded by Mr. Cogan, land of Capt. Tye, line of Richard Pace, given to him by Richard Baker; siad land being a part of the land that belonged to Richard Baker, and conveyed John Jane and wife Eliza (now wife of said John Wicket) to William Wilkins, dec'd, on 10 Jan. 1673." dated 14 April, 1710, signed John Wicket, Eliza Wicket. Recorded 8 May 1711. Then there is this deed Charles Wilkins, for 30 pounds deeds to John Wilkins 303 acres....... as deed made by John Jean & Eliza his wife dated 19 Jan 1673. Land given to Charles Wilkins by will of William Wilkins, dated 22 Aug. 1705. Nov. 13 1710. There are a few other entries where the family members give Francis Wilkins, their brother, power of attorney to turn the land over to John Wilkins. My question is what interest would Eliza Jean-Wicket and her husband have in this land 37 years later. I could understand if they were just clarifying that the land had been sold to William Wilkins, but they are quit claiming and being paid 1000 lbs of tobacco. Does this maybe mean Eliza had an interest in the land, maybe as an heir of William Wilkins? I know John Jean/Jane had a male heir, so if something were due to John, money or interest in the land, it would go to his son, would it not? Thanks for any thoughts on this, Renee

Eve, Thanks, I didn't even think about her being his sister, I had wondered if she was his daughter. As for John Wicket, he seems to have just appeared out of nowhere. I can only find a few records for him. He was taxed on 240 acres of land in 1704, so I wouldn't say he was rich. His name appears on a petition in 1701 (as well as a Loyalty Oath) , and besides an estate sell he was present at, I find nothing else. I've wondered if Wicket became Wickes or Wyche, I see those names quite a bit few years later in the same county. Thanks, Renee ----- Original Message ----- From: <eve@varneys.org.uk> To: "Renee" <dennis.newman@cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Quit Claim deed 37 years after property sold > On 18 Aug 2008 at 12:12, Renee wrote: > >> This deed is actually from Virginia but I thought it should be the >> same principal. >> >> This involves property which was sold in 1673 (no original deed, most >> records for this county were burned during the Civil War). >> >> This is from court records >> >> "I, John Wicket and Eliza my wife, of Westover Parish, Prince George >> Co., planter, for 1000 lbs tob, paid by John Wilkins for all their >> right in a tract of land in same parish and county, 303 acres on south >> side of the Great Swamp, bounded by Mr. Cogan, land of Capt. Tye, line >> of Richard Pace, given to him by Richard Baker; siad land being a part >> of the land that belonged to Richard Baker, and conveyed John Jane and >> wife Eliza (now wife of said John Wicket) to William Wilkins, dec'd, >> on 10 Jan. 1673." dated 14 April, 1710, signed John Wicket, Eliza >> Wicket. Recorded 8 May 1711. > > If I read this correctly (and there are a couple of anomalies), then John > JANE and his wife Eliza were (joint) heirs of this 303 acres, which they > had agreed to sell to William Wilkins. But did they convey it to > 'William Wilkins and his heirs male forever' or just to William? > John Jane or Jean is dead and his wife Eliza has remarried. If Virignia > is working entirely by English law, that meant her new husband > actually had the say in anything she owned or might have owned. And > if he got awkward and said this land was hers (well, his) and he > wanted it back, John Wilkins, presumably a son of William, might feel > discretion was the better part of valour, and paid over 1000 lbs of > tobacco to shut John Wicket up. > IF JW was notoriously greedy/short fused/rich then this was probably > wise, to avoid a punch up or a long law suit. There is also the > problem that John Wilkins, maybe a younger son, is taking over land > left to his ??brother in the will of William. It could be argued that John > and Eliza Jane had agreed to sell it to William and his lawful heir, not > to any old member of the family who strong-armed him out of it. > > >> >> Then there is this deed >> Charles Wilkins, for 30 pounds deeds to John Wilkins 303 acres....... >> as deed made by John Jean & Eliza his wife dated 19 Jan 1673. Land >> given to Charles Wilkins by will of William Wilkins, dated 22 Aug. >> 1705. Nov. 13 1710. There are a few other entries where the family >> members give Francis Wilkins, their brother, power of attorney to turn >> the land over to John Wilkins. >> >> My question is what interest would Eliza Jean-Wicket and her husband >> have in this land 37 years later. I could understand if they were >> just clarifying that the land had been sold to William Wilkins, but >> they are quit claiming and being paid 1000 lbs of tobacco. Does this >> maybe mean Eliza had an interest in the land, maybe as an heir of >> William Wilkins? I know John Jean/Jane had a male heir, so if >> something were due to John, money or interest in the land, it would go >> to his son, would it not? > > You could be right that Eliza was, say, sister of William Wilkins, and > was willing for him to have the family land in 1673, but not so keen > that young John was getting it instead of Charles. >> >>

This deed is actually from Virginia but I thought it should be the same principal. This involves property which was sold in 1673 (no original deed, most records for this county were burned during the Civil War). This is from court records "I, John Wicket and Eliza my wife, of Westover Parish, Prince George Co., planter, for 1000 lbs tob, paid by John Wilkins for all their right in a tract of land in same parish and county, 303 acres on south side of the Great Swamp, bounded by Mr. Cogan, land of Capt. Tye, line of Richard Pace, given to him by Richard Baker; siad land being a part of the land that belonged to Richard Baker, and conveyed John Jane and wife Eliza (now wife of said John Wicket) to William Wilkins, dec'd, on 10 Jan. 1673." dated 14 April, 1710, signed John Wicket, Eliza Wicket. Recorded 8 May 1711. Then there is this deed Charles Wilkins, for 30 pounds deeds to John Wilkins 303 acres....... as deed made by John Jean & Eliza his wife dated 19 Jan 1673. Land given to Charles Wilkins by will of William Wilkins, dated 22 Aug. 1705. Nov. 13 1710. There are a few other entries where the family members give Francis Wilkins, their brother, power of attorney to turn the land over to John Wilkins. My question is what interest would Eliza Jean-Wicket and her husband have in this land 37 years later. I could understand if they were just clarifying that the land had been sold to William Wilkins, but they are quit claiming and being paid 1000 lbs of tobacco. Does this maybe mean Eliza had an interest in the land, maybe as an heir of William Wilkins? I know John Jean/Jane had a male heir, so if something were due to John, money or interest in the land, it would go to his son, would it not? Thanks for any thoughts on this, Renee

Dear Listers, Please accept my sincere Apology on my mistake I sent a request to you all to join me. I had accidently clicked the wrong box. Instead of no one recieving it, everyone in my address book recieved it. John Gallon

JOHN GALLON wants to talk with you using the new Yahoo! Messenger: Accept the invitation by clicking this link: http://invite.msg.yahoo.com/invite?op=accept&intl=uk&sig=290vC7tj.LQ8Qy0raykhqwbHSfLqzGAmdaqiL4lfrilNVvSXMWBUuo2p0HymEEqf2ENEHvf8zBPTr7LiI7OoVLdi2w1fotTzl_bwTn25VadEPpw4BEuwSCdXb3UXCIKpiURwQeBp0RHsJTjGzktGL5rB3VXehnZe2BD2jBO6ljiA8DVF With Yahoo! Messenger, you get: Free worldwide PC-to-PC calls.* All you need are speakers and a microphone (or a headset). If no one's there, leave a voicemail! IM Windows Live&trade; Messenger friends too. Add your Windows Live friends to your Yahoo! contact list. See when they're online and IM them anytime. Stealth settings keep you in control. Now you can get in touch on your time, by controlling who sees when you're online. So what are you waiting for? It's free. Get Yahoo! Messenger and start connecting how you want, when you want. ** Emergency 999 calling services not available on Yahoo! Messenger. Please inform others who use your Yahoo! Messenger they must dial 999 through traditional phone lines or mobiles. Not for use in countries where use is prohibited. Free calling refers only to internet calling, and requires that you provide your own internet access. Call usage may be limited by your ISP.

Hello Audrey - I'm still around, bit like home alone!! Unable to help with "Blass Land" except that it is in the OED and is used in the Land Registry Office. The letter that you think maybe is 'f' is the olde manner of writing two of these letters "fs" for "ss". Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of A Lee Sent: 30 July 2008 20:26 To: Subject: [OEL] definition I do hope that you haven't all gone away on holiday and that there's someone who can tell me what "blass land" is. On the other hand, it may be "blafs land". I have read this term for land in the Land Tax Survey and Valuation of 1910 and am at a loss to know what it means. As it comes from a hand of someone brought up to use copper-plate handwriting, the word could either have a double s or an fs but I think it's most likely to be the double s. Any ideas? I'd be very grateful. Audrey ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I do hope that you haven't all gone away on holiday and that there's someone who can tell me what "blass land" is. On the other hand, it may be "blafs land". I have read this term for land in the Land Tax Survey and Valuation of 1910 and am at a loss to know what it means. As it comes from a hand of someone brought up to use copper-plate handwriting, the word could either have a double s or an fs but I think it's most likely to be the double s. Any ideas? I'd be very grateful. Audrey

Would it be accounts, bills or iou s? In other words that any debts between the two of them should be settled in the uncle's favour? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Scott" <michael@plumpton.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:58 PM Subject: [OEL] 1554 will > Hello, > > Reading the 1554 will of Martin Turpin of Northumberland, I found the > following interesting sentence: > > 'To my unkell, Arthure Fenwyk, a bay horsse wiche was Percevell Pawston, > and > all raknings between hym and me, and a yong cowe for remembrans' > > I assume that 'raknings' means reckonings, but I'm not quite sure what > this > means? > > However, my main question is whether Percevell Pawston is the name of the > horse? Was it usual to give full names to horses at this time? > > thanks, > Mike > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.11/1553 - Release Date: > 15/07/2008 05:48 > > >

This may not be relevant but tunnels, secret or otherwise, in my area have turned out to be flues carrying the smoke from mill/factory chimneys to a place where they can escape to the air in more convenient place and a draft may be maintained, e.g. from a valley to the top of the nearest rise. The idea put forward by the more romantic that a small tunnel was to allow the workers, or some of them, to get to the mill without getting their feet wet, or similar, is clearly not so when you inspect the industrial archeology of what is left of the mill. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy" <roy.cox@btinternet.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Benefice The living that is of interest to me, can date a building for the incumbent as far back as the 17th century, whether or not though is unknown, if it was the same site as the present building which was sold by the church at some date after WW2 and has been sold again in the last 10 years (c.£350,000). It was part of the 2 acres allotted by the Bishop of Bath & Wells as the Incumbents Benefice. It is supposed to have a tunnel leading to the church used by smugglers!!!! Roy -----Original Message----- From: old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:old-english-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of A Lee Sent: 14 July 2008 23:49 To: Dr Ian Buckley; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] Benefice You may be interested in the history of our vicarage. The house used by the vicars during the 19th century was actually not supplied by the church. It was owned by the first vicar in a line of three vicars who were all related to one another and the house had passed to the following occupant via family inheritance. When it came, finally, to another vicar unrelated to the previous three, there was no house for him to inhabit. He was clearly ignorant of this fact and had expected to occupy the house, now known as "The Old Vicarage" and he actually went as far as taking the owners to court. It was suggested that he should buy his own house but this didn't suit him at all. Eventually the church purchased a house very close to the church and the old vicarage. This house had been a public house called "The Church Inn" and is still the present vicarage, albeit somewhat altered from its days as an alehouse. The bridle path below it is still known locally as Alehouse Brow, shortened in speech to the Aless. The irony of it is that the original house used by the three related clerics had been the only inn in the district during the 17th century and still has signs of its former useage in the nature of an integral well within the confines of the house. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr Ian Buckley" <ianbuckley@uko2.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [OEL] Benefice > The benefice was the 'living' itself, irrespective of the income it > produced. In almost every case the recipient of a benefice (i.e. the man > to whom the 'cure of souls' was granted) was supplied with a residence: > the vicar's house was part and parcel of the benefice. The term > 'discharged living' has nothing to do with the vicar's residence, purely > with its annual value. Confusingly, the word 'vicarage' has two meanings: > 1. the benefice 2. the vicar's residence. Such subtleties gave > ecclesiastical lawyers a good steady income > Ian > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1550 - Release Date: > 13/07/2008 17:58 > > > ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.11/1553 - Release Date: 15/07/2008 05:48

Hi Mike In this context it means that the horse had previously belonged to Percival Pawston, ie we would write "a bay horse which was Percival Pawston's" (at this time in England a good proportion of horses would have been bay so it needed something to distinguish it from other bay horses that he may have had). Reckonings means "accounts" - so persumably he wishes to forgive him from paying anything that he owed him at his death. HTH Polly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Scott" <michael@plumpton.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:58 PM Subject: [OEL] 1554 will Hello, Reading the 1554 will of Martin Turpin of Northumberland, I found the following interesting sentence: 'To my unkell, Arthure Fenwyk, a bay horsse wiche was Percevell Pawston, and all raknings between hym and me, and a yong cowe for remembrans' I assume that 'raknings' means reckonings, but I'm not quite sure what this means? However, my main question is whether Percevell Pawston is the name of the horse? Was it usual to give full names to horses at this time? thanks, Mike ==================================== WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Is there anyone on the list who might be able to help decipher and explain a record I photographed at the National Archives in Kew. It relates to my ancestor David Tidbury who served with the 23rd Regiment of Foot (the Royal Welch Fusiliers) throughout the Peninsular War and was also present at the Battle of Waterloo. His earlier career was less illustrious and according to the document I found he seems to have made several attempts at deserting. There's one word which I think is an abbreviation which I can't read. He seems to have two different dates for his enlistment and one of the dates seems to be after he had deserted for the second time and before he had been "claimed by Civil Power" which seems to make no sense at all. I can send a jpeg file if anyone is able to help. Debbie Kennett

Hello, Reading the 1554 will of Martin Turpin of Northumberland, I found the following interesting sentence: 'To my unkell, Arthure Fenwyk, a bay horsse wiche was Percevell Pawston, and all raknings between hym and me, and a yong cowe for remembrans' I assume that 'raknings' means reckonings, but I'm not quite sure what this means? However, my main question is whether Percevell Pawston is the name of the horse? Was it usual to give full names to horses at this time? thanks, Mike