In message <[email protected]>, Michael Scott <[email protected]> writes >Hello, > >I'm tracing the history of an C18 East London merchant. He is in partnership >with a brewer in Aldgate up to the early 1730s, marries and moves to >Whitechapel in 1732, and goes into the corn trade. He is also a tax assessor >or auditor for various E London parishes. I've been helped by the fact that >he has a fairly distinctive signature that survives on numerous tax and >parish records. > >But there's a problem. In several documents he gives his age, and there is a >worrying disparity: > >Consistory court deposition 1711 -- about 35 >Consistory court deposition 1713 -- about 37 >Chancery deposition 1722 -- about 47 years >Marriage Allegation 1732 -- aged 30 years (bachelor) >Chancery deposition 1746 -- about 50 years > >If the early ages are remotely accurate, then he was actually in his mid-50s >when he married. Which seems a bit excessive for a man in a good financial position, not a soldier, not a rake helly gent. A merchant needs a wife to make things comfortable for him and to keep en eye on the valuables when he is working. > >What I would like to know is whether it is usual for someone (who is >literate and numerate) to be so wildly inaccurate about their age, Once they were 21, and a full adult, people had no good reason to think about their exact ages until suddenly some official demanded to know. However, the range of discrepancy is usually around a couple of years, up to five being acceptable. It looks to me as if you do have two people here, possibly father born around 1676 and son born around 1699/1700 (which could be checked by a will?) The marriage licence age is often rounded (usually 21 and upwards, 25 and upwards, but if he says 'getting on for thirty' that goes in) Chancery dep age could be an estimate by a clerk, again, 'getting on for fifty.' >or >whether this indicates that there must be two different people here (albeit >with the same signature)? This is not an easy indicator., Either the father could have taught the son to write (we have a four generation run of will making Edmund Brangwins, whose writing looks almost identical) or the same teacher taught both. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Whilst this thread is still up and running listers might be interested (I hesitate to say "amused" as passions were aroused and feelings strong) in an appeal heard at The Court of Arches and reported in The Times in 1827. One Esau Jenkins had been brought before the Consistory Court of St David's "for brawling in the churchyard against the statute, quarrelling, chiding and other enormous crimes and offences". As reported, "Mary Jenkins, baptist, being about to be married to a person of whom her father disapproved, Esau Jenkins entered the church at LLangan in Walesand conducted himself improperly towards the Reverend Daniel Rowlands who was preparing to perform the matrimonial service. In consequence of what passed the clergyman refused to perform the ceremony until Mary Jenkins had undergone the rite of baptism to which she assented. Whereupon her father leaped upon the font.prevented the ceremony and declared that his daughter should bring such a slur on the religion of the baptists The judge, for legal reasons which are not fully detailed, seems to have decided in favour of Jenkins, but advised him that whilst he might differ from the established church he should exercise toleration towards it. Seemingly, no mention of the poor Mary or what passed between daughter and father ! So there is a case relating to "the baptism of such as are of riper years" !! Jim Halsey

Hello, I'm tracing the history of an C18 East London merchant. He is in partnership with a brewer in Aldgate up to the early 1730s, marries and moves to Whitechapel in 1732, and goes into the corn trade. He is also a tax assessor or auditor for various E London parishes. I've been helped by the fact that he has a fairly distinctive signature that survives on numerous tax and parish records. But there's a problem. In several documents he gives his age, and there is a worrying disparity: Consistory court deposition 1711 -- about 35 Consistory court deposition 1713 -- about 37 Chancery deposition 1722 -- about 47 years Marriage Allegation 1732 -- aged 30 years (bachelor) Chancery deposition 1746 -- about 50 years If the early ages are remotely accurate, then he was actually in his mid-50s when he married. What I would like to know is whether it is usual for someone (who is literate and numerate) to be so wildly inaccurate about their age, or whether this indicates that there must be two different people here (albeit with the same signature)? thanks, Michael -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 23/08/2006

YOu mention adult baptisms just before marriages. Some Methodist congregations did and do baptise adults rather than children. Not as much as the Baptists, but it happens. And in my own Methodist church these days, the only babies who are baptised are from families who dont attend the church, the families from church dont baptise, they have service of thanksgiving and await adulthood for the child to be baptised by total immersion. And there are plenty of very old people for whom this was the case and their parents and grandparents before them, from the conversations we have around the hired birthing pool in which we baptise people Liz > >Hello – and thanks to all for your thoughts. (They go some way towards a >firm conclusion on my part and convincing another descendent of the same >family. I will be forwarding all!) > >The registers concerned appear to be very complete but closer acquaintance >tells a different story. Particularly for the period around 1785 give or >take a few years. And of course, my ancestor was born, and not recorded in >that year. Aware of the levy on register entries I have thought that this >may be the reason, but I also strongly suspect the growing influence of >Wesleyan Methodism. (A few late baptisms just before a marriage seem to >confirm this.) > >Another question, if this is the right place (?), published works give >extracts from the Bishop’s Visitations for 1804 and the minister states >that >there is a preacher of the ‘itinerant kind’ and that assemblies were not >large, but I suspect he may have been deliberately underestimating the >influence of non-conformity in the parish. Wesley is reputed (though I have >not found evidence in his journals) to have preached in the town and >Methodism was strong until very recent times. Could the minister have >fudged >the truth? > >Barbara > >Hello All, > >My impression from my own research is that baptismal dates are at best no >more than a rough guide to birth dates, Some families seem to be baptised >in clusters, others baptised late, sometimes very late..Some, in large >families, even seem to have been missed. Who knows why? There is a >particular form of service in the Book of Common Prayer for "The >ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years"..There were two >periods when a 3d duty was levied on register entries, the later beginning >1st Oct 1783 and continuing, writing from memory, until 1794. Whilst >arrangements were in place for the parish to pay the fee for those too poor >to pay, it seems to have had the effect, unsurprisingly, of discouraging >baptisms. Not everyone, even in those supposedly religous days arranged >for >their children to be baptised, and no doubt even those that did could have >found the journey to church in a large rural parish a matter for some >consideration and, in bad weather, of delay. Some would waited till caught >by the parson, others could well have flirted with, or committed themselves >to, non-conformism which had its own baptismal arrangements. Non-conformism >was strong in 18th and 19th cc. The world was different then, and in my >opinion, we should beware of making assumptions. > >Jim Halsey > > > > > > > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH >

In message <[email protected]>, L B Hansen <[email protected]> writes >Sorry - The link was not working - here are the deeds in question - Thanks - >Linda > > 1639 page 563- Covenant to stand seised made between 1.'Raphe' Bancrofte of >Barrow upon Trent, yeoman and 2. Jarvis Bancrofte of the same place, natural >brother of Raphe, by which, for love and affection and to enable Jarvis to >execute Raphe 's will, the latter covenants to stand seised of 1/3 of messuage >with lands belonging in Aston, in the tenure of Christopher Bancrofte, Raphe's >brother, and all other lands of Raphe in Aston, to the use of himself for life, >remainder to Jarvis for ever, in trust that if Christopher pays £120 to Raphe >during his life or to Jarvis after Raphe 's death, the premises will be conveyed >to Christopher. This sounds as if Christopher is an adult, able to make contracts and liable to perform legal obligations. Ths situation is probably that Jarvis is to be executor of Ralph's will, so he needs to be able to raise some money (to pay money bequests to others?). The third of the house where Christopher lives and all other lands are therefore agreed to be handed over to him on Ralph's death, but if Christopher pays up £120 he owes (??mortgage/ bond), then he gets a clear title to the rest of the house and the other lands after Ralph's death. If he doesn't pay up the money, he doesn't get the house and land, which Jarvis retains (and presumably sells to pay off the other legacies.) > > >1639 -page 564-565 Bargain and sale in trust (2 parts) made between 1. Jarvis >Bancrofte of Barrow upon Trent, William Bancrofte of the same place and John >Bancrofte of Chellaston, yeomen 2. John Soare of Chellaston and John Martyn of >Stapleford, county Nottingham, yeoman 3. Christopher Bancroft of Aston yeoman, >by which Jarvis, William and John Bancrofte for £240 paid to them by Christopher >Bancroft, at Christopher's direction and in trust for him, conveyed to Soare and >Martyn the messuage in which Christopher Bancroft now lives, 3 yardlands of >land, meadow or pasture, buildings, meadows, leasows, closes and pastures in >Aston belonging to the messuage, all formerly the freehold possessions of Henry >Sachaverell late of Hopwell esquire deceased. > > This must be after Ralph's death. Christopher has, possibly, defaulted on the £120 and therefore become indebted for £240 (this was usual); Now he is paying up the debt, and therefore comes into possession of the whole of the house and the other lands. But he is skint after doing so, and therefore has to sell the whole property (or this part of it, if he has other property left) to get his finances on an even keel again. Jarvis and William are sort of stakeholders for the transaction and will hand over the whole house and lands mentioned to Messrs Soar and Martin, the moment Chris pays up. Could be that Chris has borrowed the £240 from S & M to pay J & W. The security for the mortgage is the house etc. This could be an outright sale, or one which Chris expected that he would get back when his ship came in. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

> >We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or >about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the >mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to >learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months was >required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether >the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means >that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the >first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting >pregnant gradually increases. I gather it was never safe to rely on this - a healthy woman recovered fast. The 'norm' in so far as there was one, for unregulated births for a normally fertile couple, is that the first two babies are often one year apart, then it will settle down to a pattern of almost exactly two years apart, with the last one perhaps 3-4 years behind the next last. Some couples where the wife is better fed and has servants may produce one a year (not recommended, even for the idle rich, and there is an example in the Cavendish family where the mother had 8 in succession a year apart; the husband was warned she would not be able to cope physically with another so quickly. But he had to have his rights; she died of the next one. A few families with lower fertility may settle into a 2 years; then 2 1/2 to 3 years, then perhaps a final 5. > >This is important information for genealogists. Assuming that baptisms take >place a few days after births, This is really only true in towns, or in the earlier centuries. Country folk more often tended to wait 3 or later 4 weeks. After the period when failure to baptise could attract a fine or legal reprimand (C17, early C18), the time scale either lengthened or became more irregular. >(Children baptised, time between this child's baptism and the next baptism >in years, months and days) >Between A and B, 2y 5m 0d >Between B and C, 3y 1m 23d >Between C and D, 2y 0m 19d >between D and E, 1y 4m 15d >Between E and F, 3y 3m 3d >Between F and G, 1y 2m 3d - query >Between G and H, 1y 10m 1d >Between H and I, 1y 3m 20d >Between I and J, 2y 1m 8d >Between J and K, 1y 7m 3d >Between K and L, 3y 0m 24d >Between L and M, 1y 2m 19d - query I suspect that there is either late miscarriage, where the interval lengthens out, or late baptism intermittently - so the actual interval is different. You don't mention the name involved. It is wise to be able to rule out two families with the same pair of names, baptising more or less alternately in the same parish. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Hello – and thanks to all for your thoughts. (They go some way towards a firm conclusion on my part and convincing another descendent of the same family. I will be forwarding all!) The registers concerned appear to be very complete but closer acquaintance tells a different story. Particularly for the period around 1785 give or take a few years. And of course, my ancestor was born, and not recorded in that year. Aware of the levy on register entries I have thought that this may be the reason, but I also strongly suspect the growing influence of Wesleyan Methodism. (A few late baptisms just before a marriage seem to confirm this.) Another question, if this is the right place (?), published works give extracts from the Bishop’s Visitations for 1804 and the minister states that there is a preacher of the ‘itinerant kind’ and that assemblies were not large, but I suspect he may have been deliberately underestimating the influence of non-conformity in the parish. Wesley is reputed (though I have not found evidence in his journals) to have preached in the town and Methodism was strong until very recent times. Could the minister have fudged the truth? Barbara -----Original Message----- From: j halsey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 August 2006 21:39 To: Barbara Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OEL] Time between births Hello All, My impression from my own research is that baptismal dates are at best no more than a rough guide to birth dates, Some families seem to be baptised in clusters, others baptised late, sometimes very late..Some, in large families, even seem to have been missed. Who knows why? There is a particular form of service in the Book of Common Prayer for "The ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years"..There were two periods when a 3d duty was levied on register entries, the later beginning 1st Oct 1783 and continuing, writing from memory, until 1794. Whilst arrangements were in place for the parish to pay the fee for those too poor to pay, it seems to have had the effect, unsurprisingly, of discouraging baptisms. Not everyone, even in those supposedly religous days arranged for their children to be baptised, and no doubt even those that did could have found the journey to church in a large rural parish a matter for some consideration and, in bad weather, of delay. Some would waited till caught by the parson, others could well have flirted with, or committed themselves to, non-conformism which had its own baptismal arrangements. Non-conformism was strong in 18th and 19th cc. The world was different then, and in my opinion, we should beware of making assumptions. Jim Halsey

At 21:38 25/08/2006, j halsey wrote: >Not everyone, even in those supposedly religous days arranged for >their children to be baptised, and no doubt even those that did could have >found the journey to church in a large rural parish a matter for some >consideration and, in bad weather, of delay And consider harvest and planting, nobody is going to jeopardise their future well being for a baptism. Consider the demands of the farming year, the impassibility of roads in some areas in bad weather, an intervening pregnancy and it is easy to see baptisms being pushed back for several years. The final impetus perhaps being a family or extended family baptism where maybe four or five members of the same family get baptised en lump. My record so far is nine members of the same family baptised on the same day. John

Hello All, My impression from my own research is that baptismal dates are at best no more than a rough guide to birth dates, Some families seem to be baptised in clusters, others baptised late, sometimes very late..Some, in large families, even seem to have been missed. Who knows why? There is a particular form of service in the Book of Common Prayer for "The ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years"..There were two periods when a 3d duty was levied on register entries, the later beginning 1st Oct 1783 and continuing, writing from memory, until 1794. Whilst arrangements were in place for the parish to pay the fee for those too poor to pay, it seems to have had the effect, unsurprisingly, of discouraging baptisms. Not everyone, even in those supposedly religous days arranged for their children to be baptised, and no doubt even those that did could have found the journey to church in a large rural parish a matter for some consideration and, in bad weather, of delay. Some would waited till caught by the parson, others could well have flirted with, or committed themselves to, non-conformism which had its own baptismal arrangements. Non-conformism was strong in 18th and 19th cc. The world was different then, and in my opinion, we should beware of making assumptions. Jim Halsey On 8/25/06, Barbara <[email protected]> wrote: > > This has been fascinating and timely for me, worrying again at my greatest > brick wall when this topic arose on the list. > > To cut a long story short I am trying to decide (although I may never be > entirely sure) which of two possible families an ancestor belonged to and > have circumstantial evidence to link him to one family but two > christenings > very close together have always been a problem. I have a child baptised on > the 6th August 1779 and another baptised on the 9th February 1780. > Everything else seems to suggest that they are from the same family but > only > six months separate the two baptisms. However.... if the baptism of the > first child was delayed slightly and the second child was premature and > baptised promptly then it could just be possible, perhaps? The second > child > died almost exactly two years after the baptism. > > Any thoughts appreciated. > > Barbara > > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected] > >

This has been fascinating and timely for me, worrying again at my greatest brick wall when this topic arose on the list. To cut a long story short I am trying to decide (although I may never be entirely sure) which of two possible families an ancestor belonged to and have circumstantial evidence to link him to one family but two christenings very close together have always been a problem. I have a child baptised on the 6th August 1779 and another baptised on the 9th February 1780. Everything else seems to suggest that they are from the same family but only six months separate the two baptisms. However.... if the baptism of the first child was delayed slightly and the second child was premature and baptised promptly then it could just be possible, perhaps? The second child died almost exactly two years after the baptism. Any thoughts appreciated. Barbara

What if the baby wasnt a beast who demanded feeding all time - did this still work. Sorry do a lot of proof reading and couldnt resist that. Incidentally I do know of women who breast feed an older child whilst pregnant with another one, and eventually go to be feeding both of them Liz ? >1. beast feeding on demand (whenever the child wants it, every time) can be >a pretty good way of spacing births. This subject has interested me because >one of my dear friends is a midwife. In my genealogy files, I find a two >year spacing occurs the most often, which can be achieved with on demand >feeding. >2. As pointed out earlier, those who had wet nurses had a child nearly >every year. >3. I would find, if there was a child born nearly a year after another, >quite often, if iIdug a little deeper, I would find the earlier child had >died soon. > >And the note about the baby being strapped to the mother's chest........how >interesting. Thank you for sharing that. > >Regards, >Sue Prideaux > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >OLD-ENGLISH Web Page >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >

Langtree Parish (Devon) had a short time where birth and bapt recorded. Here it is. As you can see, there is a great variation of times between births and baptisms but generally 3 or 4 weeks seems the norm. Jul 19, 1781 born Jun 27 Sept 30, 1781 born Aug 27 Sept 29, 1781 born Sep 18 Dec 14, 1781 born Sep 16 Oct 14, 1781 born Sept 25 Nov 21, 1781 born Oct 21 Dec 2, 1781 born Oct 14 Dec 8, 1781 (privately) born dec 7 Feb 13, 1782 born Jan 29 Feb 13, 1782 born Jan 18 Feb 24, 1782 born Jan 11 Mar 2, 1782 born Feb [?] Mar 24, 1782 born Feb 26 Mar 28, 1782 born Feb 14 Mar 29, 1782 born Feb 5 Apr 14, 1782 born Apr 5 Apr 28, 1782 born Feb 26 Apr 16, 1782 (privately) born Apr 9 May 16 1782 born Mar 31 Jul 7, 1782 born Jun 10 Jul 14, 1782 born Jun 23 Aug 5, 1782 born May 1 Oct 13, 1782 born Sept 30 Jan 19, 1783 born Dec 14, 1782 Jan 19, 1783 born Dec 31, 1782 Sep 19, 1783 born Jan 25 Feb 16, 1783 born Dec 16, 1782 Apr 18, 1783 born Mar 11 May 16, 1783 born Apr 30 June 4, 1783 born May 6 Jun 9, 1783 born Apr 24 Jul 24, 1783 born Jun 12 Aug 10, 1783 born July 16 Sept 28, 1783 born Sept 13 Betsy

I've had little luck finding baptisms that indicated much about a birth date, except to place it BEFORE the baptism. There are even times when a marriage date was given by an ancestor in writing in one place, and the actual records indicate some other date entirely. It could have been that the couple agreed that they would be married at the soonest date when a preacher could be had, and then started living together. The same thing could occur when they had children to baptize. They could have done it at the earliest convenience, not believing that it had to be done immediately without putting the child's soul in jeopardy. There was always the ability to baptize a child yourself if the child was in danger of death, and that would never be registered, I think. And if the child didn't die, then the preacher could be put to use when he was available. Remember, not all these people lived within reach of a church at all times. And some times, if the mother or father took i! ll, the importance of his or her being made well would take on more importance than having a baptism, perhaps. If all you have is a baptism date, then you know only that the child was born BEFORE that date, and only that. We certainly can't make any assumptions as to how long they could take before that child was baptized, especially if there were other circumstances happening at the same time, such as fires, plagues, illnesses running rampant, other children being ill, etc. There are too many factors in real life to allow us to pin down these kinds of things consistently. Some families were very good at keeping their records up and taking care of letting their descendants know what they were up to, and others were like the rest of us have. We're lucky when we find dates that we think are good ones. And even then, we always apply the caveat that they were our ancestors and were NOT thinking of us. Myra Herron ----- Original Message ----- From: j halsey<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Time between births Hello All, My impression from my own research is that baptismal dates are at best no more than a rough guide to birth dates, Some families seem to be baptised in clusters, others baptised late, sometimes very late..Some, in large families, even seem to have been missed. Who knows why? There is a particular form of service in the Book of Common Prayer for "The ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years"..There were two periods when a 3d duty was levied on register entries, the later beginning 1st Oct 1783 and continuing, writing from memory, until 1794. Whilst arrangements were in place for the parish to pay the fee for those too poor to pay, it seems to have had the effect, unsurprisingly, of discouraging baptisms. Not everyone, even in those supposedly religous days arranged for their children to be baptised, and no doubt even those that did could have found the journey to church in a large rural parish a matter for some consideration and, in bad weather, of delay. Some would waited till caught by the parson, others could well have flirted with, or committed themselves to, non-conformism which had its own baptismal arrangements. Non-conformism was strong in 18th and 19th cc. The world was different then, and in my opinion, we should beware of making assumptions. Jim Halsey On 8/25/06, Barbara <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > This has been fascinating and timely for me, worrying again at my greatest > brick wall when this topic arose on the list. > > To cut a long story short I am trying to decide (although I may never be > entirely sure) which of two possible families an ancestor belonged to and > have circumstantial evidence to link him to one family but two > christenings > very close together have always been a problem. I have a child baptised on > the 6th August 1779 and another baptised on the 9th February 1780. > Everything else seems to suggest that they are from the same family but > only > six months separate the two baptisms. However.... if the baptism of the > first child was delayed slightly and the second child was premature and > baptised promptly then it could just be possible, perhaps? The second > child > died almost exactly two years after the baptism. > > Any thoughts appreciated. > > Barbara > > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH>

Thank you - It does appear that Ralphe was still living at the time these were made although it does seem like they believed Ralphe's death was to occur before Jarvis' death. It also appears to me that Ralphe did not have any other descendants besides his siblings. Linda L B Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: 1639 page 563- Covenant to stand seised made between 1.'Raphe' Bancrofte of Barrow upon Trent, yeoman and 2. Jarvis Bancrofte of the same place, natural brother of Raphe, by which, for love and affection and to enable Jarvis to execute Raphe 's will, the latter covenants to stand seised of 1/3 of messuage with lands belonging in Aston, in the tenure of Christopher Bancrofte, Raphe's brother, and all other lands of Raphe in Aston, to the use of himself for life, remainder to Jarvis for ever, in trust that if Christopher pays £120 to Raphe during his life or to Jarvis after Raphe 's death, the premises will be conveyed to Christopher. --------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

Sorry - The link was not working - here are the deeds in question - Thanks - Linda 1639 page 563- Covenant to stand seised made between 1.'Raphe' Bancrofte of Barrow upon Trent, yeoman and 2. Jarvis Bancrofte of the same place, natural brother of Raphe, by which, for love and affection and to enable Jarvis to execute Raphe 's will, the latter covenants to stand seised of 1/3 of messuage with lands belonging in Aston, in the tenure of Christopher Bancrofte, Raphe's brother, and all other lands of Raphe in Aston, to the use of himself for life, remainder to Jarvis for ever, in trust that if Christopher pays £120 to Raphe during his life or to Jarvis after Raphe 's death, the premises will be conveyed to Christopher. 1639 -page 564-565 Bargain and sale in trust (2 parts) made between 1. Jarvis Bancrofte of Barrow upon Trent, William Bancrofte of the same place and John Bancrofte of Chellaston, yeomen 2. John Soare of Chellaston and John Martyn of Stapleford, county Nottingham, yeoman 3. Christopher Bancroft of Aston yeoman, by which Jarvis, William and John Bancrofte for £240 paid to them by Christopher Bancroft, at Christopher's direction and in trust for him, conveyed to Soare and Martyn the messuage in which Christopher Bancroft now lives, 3 yardlands of land, meadow or pasture, buildings, meadows, leasows, closes and pastures in Aston belonging to the messuage, all formerly the freehold possessions of Henry Sachaverell late of Hopwell esquire deceased. L B Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: I am struggling with the following deeds that are on A2A http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxsl.asp?com=1&i=0&nbKey=1&stylesheet=xsl\A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Jarvis%20Bancrofte&properties=0601 If anyone has a moment to take a look at them and advise me - I would appreciate it. Someone told me yesterday that since the second deed holds an amount in trust for Christopher Bancroft that he must be a minor. It did not appear that he was a minor in his father's will in 1625. As a matter of fact, a Chrstopher Bancroft witnessed the will - but maybe a different Christopher? According to the first deed - it appears that Ralphe Bancroft had recently died though I have not found a copy of his will in the Derbyshire records. Thanks- Linda --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ --------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

I am struggling with the following deeds that are on A2A http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxsl.asp?com=1&i=0&nbKey=1&stylesheet=xsl\A2A_com.xsl&keyword=Jarvis%20Bancrofte&properties=0601 If anyone has a moment to take a look at them and advise me - I would appreciate it. Someone told me yesterday that since the second deed holds an amount in trust for Christopher Bancroft that he must be a minor. It did not appear that he was a minor in his father's will in 1625. As a matter of fact, a Chrstopher Bancroft witnessed the will - but maybe a different Christopher? According to the first deed - it appears that Ralphe Bancroft had recently died though I have not found a copy of his will in the Derbyshire records. Thanks- Linda --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Hello, May I put in my 2 cents worth? 1. beast feeding on demand (whenever the child wants it, every time) can be a pretty good way of spacing births. This subject has interested me because one of my dear friends is a midwife. In my genealogy files, I find a two year spacing occurs the most often, which can be achieved with on demand feeding. 2. As pointed out earlier, those who had wet nurses had a child nearly every year. 3. I would find, if there was a child born nearly a year after another, quite often, if iIdug a little deeper, I would find the earlier child had died soon. And the note about the baby being strapped to the mother's chest........how interesting. Thank you for sharing that. Regards, Sue Prideaux

Breast feeding does not have a contraceptive effect. That is an old wives tale. Some women become fertile - i.e. produce an egg a couple of weeks after giving birth and could concieve - now we are all told to wait six weeks before resuming maritals, but they probably werent then, and many wont have - in fact many women may not have been given the choice. Also, not all pregnancies last 38 weeks, sometimes babies were born early, and contrary to what you might think, babies born from about 7 1/2 months gestation often survived because the mother kept the baby strapped to the breast with blankets and so the baby was kept warm and well fed - they still do this is remote parts of the world today where baby intensive care isnt available. Pregnancy itself can enhance fertility - I know of women who have taken years to conceive, and have thought they were safe without contraception after the birth of the child and found themselves pregnant by the time they went for their six week post natal check. So your babies in your list probably are all the same family. Liz P > >When researching large families in the mid to late 1500s where there is >good >information on baptism dates, you can get a succession of children with >notionally the same father which I, at least, have merely recorded without >really looking at the time difference between the given baptism dates. > >A fact that has escaped me until now is that there are real physical >constraints preventing births being too close to each other. > >We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or >about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the >mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to >learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months >was >required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether >the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means >that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the >first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting >pregnant gradually increases. > >This is important information for genealogists. Assuming that baptisms take >place a few days after births, it means that from the birth of one baby, >there is a lactation period of 6 months, conception, gestation of 9 months, >and baptism - i.e. at least 1 year 3 months > >I recorded these baptisms for one father: > >(Children baptised, time between this child's baptism and the next baptism >in years, months and days) >Between A and B, 2y 5m 0d >Between B and C, 3y 1m 23d >Between C and D, 2y 0m 19d >between D and E, 1y 4m 15d >Between E and F, 3y 3m 3d >Between F and G, 1y 2m 3d - query >Between G and H, 1y 10m 1d >Between H and I, 1y 3m 20d >Between I and J, 2y 1m 8d >Between J and K, 1y 7m 3d >Between K and L, 3y 0m 24d >Between L and M, 1y 2m 19d - query >M is the final baptism > >There was a burial of someone with the family surname just before the >baptism of B. Let's call him Z. Z may have died very young; there is no >baptism record for him. However using the criteria above: 6 months >lactation, 9 months gestation, 6 months lactation, 9 months gestation which >amounts to 2y 6m, there is insufficient time between A and B for Z to have >been born. Z therefore is probably an older member of the family or a child >in a different line. > >Moreover, looking at the data above, it is doubtful that both G and M had >the same father as the rest of the children. > >The question is have I made some false assumptions along the way, or have I >not taken other factors into account? >~~ >Keith Griffiths > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- >Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to >[email protected] >

This is so true, my dear SIL was told by her mother she couldnt conceive when breastfeeding, and her second daughter was born on her first daughter's first birthday. I also know a pair of siblings only 8 months apart, because the second child was concieved about 6 weeks after the birth of the first one and was born early. I could tell more tales but they arent for this list. So alhtough medics tell women it is good to wait at least year before trying for another baby, many people have had another child within the year Liz >Hi Keith, > >I don't think you can have such a set time frame between the birth of one >child and the next. > >My older sister is thirteen months older than I am. > >My two youngest children have eleven months between them. I too believed >the old wives tales that if you were feeding a child, you wouldn't become >pregnant. Wrong....... > >Sometimes the hand of fate intervenes with us mere mortals:-)) > >Kind regards, >Yvonne > > >> >When researching large families in the mid to late 1500s where there is >good >information on baptism dates, you can get a succession of children with >notionally the same father which I, at least, have merely recorded without >really looking at the time difference between the given baptism dates. > >A fact that has escaped me until now is that there are real physical >constraints preventing births being too close to each other. > >We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or >about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the >mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to >learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months >was >required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether >the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means >that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the >first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting >pregnant gradually increases. > >This is important information for genealogists. Assuming that baptisms take >place a few days after births, it means that from the birth of one baby, >there is a lactation period of 6 months, conception, gestation of 9 months, >and baptism - i.e. at least 1 year 3 months > >I recorded these baptisms for one father: > >(Children baptised, time between this child's baptism and the next baptism >in years, months and days) >Between A and B, 2y 5m 0d >Between B and C, 3y 1m 23d >Between C and D, 2y 0m 19d >between D and E, 1y 4m 15d >Between E and F, 3y 3m 3d >Between F and G, 1y 2m 3d - query >Between G and H, 1y 10m 1d >Between H and I, 1y 3m 20d >Between I and J, 2y 1m 8d >Between J and K, 1y 7m 3d >Between K and L, 3y 0m 24d >Between L and M, 1y 2m 19d - query >M is the final baptism > >There was a burial of someone with the family surname just before the >baptism of B. Let's call him Z. Z may have died very young; there is no >baptism record for him. However using the criteria above: 6 months >lactation, 9 months gestation, 6 months lactation, 9 months gestation which >amounts to 2y 6m, there is insufficient time between A and B for Z to have >been born. Z therefore is probably an older member of the family or a child >in a different line. > >Moreover, looking at the data above, it is doubtful that both G and M had >the same father as the rest of the children. > >The question is have I made some false assumptions along the way, or have I >not taken other factors into account? >~~ >Keith Griffiths ><< > > > > > >==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== >Going away for a while? >Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! >[email protected] >

There is indeed a theory that breast feeding is a natural contraceptive for a while but it is not infallable as Guy notes - and I would be surprised if it was 98% effective. I was told not to depend on it. Also these days many women do not breast feed for long if at all. Speaking of the past those who engaged wet nurses and did not feed themselves would also not have this protection whatever its value. Broadly speaking it takes the woman's body 9 months to recover fully from having a baby. Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Etchells" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Time between births > Nice theory but wrong. > In my own family there is 16 months between my first born and second > born and 13 months between my second and third. > My wife was born 11 months before her sister. > Cheers > Guy > > > Keith Griffiths wrote: > > snip > > A fact that has escaped me until now is that there are real physical > > constraints preventing births being too close to each other. > > > > We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or > > about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the > > mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to > > learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months was > > required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether > > the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means > > that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the > > first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting > > pregnant gradually increases. > > > > snip > > > > The question is have I made some false assumptions along the way, or have I > > not taken other factors into account? > > ~~ > > Keith Griffiths > > > > -- > Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. > http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts > not promises! > http://anguline.co.uk/ Anguline Research Archives > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >