In message <417D0EC0.000001.03188@XP-BKBHO2U9YIMM>, Elizabeth Atherton <elizabeth.atherton@biscituk.com> writes > I have an early 19th century tea-set which has been passed down to the >eldest grand-daughter - so far by custom rather than by will, although I >have mentioned it in my will. It was a wedding present to my 3x great >grandmother who died in 1820. I am the sixth owner. That is brilliant - the continuity over the generations must give as much satisfaction as inhernsion by entail. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <002401c4ba2e$86bfdf80$63dbae51@lovegrove>, Sandra Lovegrove <lovegrove@one-name.org> writes >A couple of comments on recent contributions: > >(1) Mr.Collins in 'Pride and Prejudice' would have been the next >eligible beneficiary under a "tail male" entail: the most common sort >of arrangement. tail male has to go THROUGH males. The next male heir would be a son or grandson from an uncle or even great uncle of Mr Bennett, not from his sister's son. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I have an early 19th century tea-set which has been passed down to the eldest grand-daughter - so far by custom rather than by will, although I have mentioned it in my will. It was a wedding present to my 3x great grandmother who died in 1820. I am the sixth owner. ... Elizabeth Atherton I was delighted to find only a few years ago that an ancestress of mine had left something (a wedding veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her will. I wonder if such female-entails are in any way common? And you may be glad to hear that the veil is still in use, is now in about the sixth generation of ownership and has adorned over 20 brides, including, I was surprised to find, my mother. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

In message of 25 Oct, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote: > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > >> Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a > > >> family of Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it > > >> through, since the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) > > >> who would not have taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her > > >> social classes and wrote well, but her grasp of law lacked > > >> something. > > I replied: > > >For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of > understanding > > >an entail, see this link: > > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > male entail cannot pass through a sister to her son. It is never said > > that any other and more obscure settlement is intended./; > > > It may be worth reading the page I linked to > (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet) before > dismissing it. > > As it points out, whatever Mr Collins was, he couldn't have been "a sister's > son", as he is called "a distant relation". (Elsewhere Mr Bennet himself > refers to Mr Collins as his "cousin".) > > Chris Phillips In all this I am wondering what an entail is. To the best of my knowledge it remains a trust usually set up by a will. So each will needs careful examination to see what the terms actually were. Further I suspect that using the word "entail" in a will can lead to unclarity. Certainly earlier wills that I have seen were quite clear on (a) the main line of beneficiaries and (b) what to do when or if that main line failed. If others cared to call this an entail, then so be it, but the terms were those in the will. Having said all that, I suspect we are all reasonably clear on what a "male-entail" is. As something different, I was delighted to find only a few years ago that an ancestress of mine had left something (a wedding veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her will. I wonder if such female-entails are in any way common? And you may be glad to hear that the veil is still in use, is now in about the sixth generation of ownership and has adorned over 20 brides, including, I was surprised to find, my mother. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Eve McLaughlin wrote: > >> Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of > >> Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since > >> the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have > >> taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, > >> but her grasp of law lacked something. I replied: > >For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of understanding > >an entail, see this link: Eve McLaughlin wrote: > male entail cannot pass through a sister to her son. It is never said > that any other and more obscure settlement is intended./; It may be worth reading the page I linked to (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet) before dismissing it. As it points out, whatever Mr Collins was, he couldn't have been "a sister's son", as he is called "a distant relation". (Elsewhere Mr Bennet himself refers to Mr Collins as his "cousin".) Chris Phillips

In message <001c01c4ba0b$0a2c52a0$774086d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes >Eve McLaughlin wrote: >> Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of >> Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since >> the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have >> taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, >> but her grasp of law lacked something. > >For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of understanding >an entail, see this link: male entail cannot pass through a sister to her son. It is never said that any other and more obscure settlement is intended./; -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

This may be slightly "off topic" but the list is not particularly busy and I hope Judith does not mind (:-) With great difficulty and a lot of help from (more than one) SKS, we have gotten a Papal Dispensation transcribed and translated. It is a letter, dated 1463, from Pope Pius II authorizing the recipient, Canon Richard Langcake of The Augustinian Order of the Monastery at Carlisle to hold more than one benefice. There is one line (11) that has us stumped. I know there are some people on the list with a lot of knowledge of Latin. Can anyone help please? The line in question is this: "tibi penitus int[er]dicta lib[er]e & licite possis ac valeas" What precedes and follows it, is this: tame[n] quor[um]cu[m]q[ue] bonor[um] Immobiliu[m] & p[re]c[i]osoru[m] mobiliu[m] ip[s]ius com[m]endati b[e]n[e]ficii tibi penitus int[er]dicta lib[er]e & licite possis Ac valeas nevertheless, of whatsoever immoveable goods and valuable moveable goods of that commended benefice, you may and can freely and lawfully use interdicts, 12] auct[oritat]e Ap[o]stol[i]ca tenore p[rese]ntiu[m] de sp[eci]alis dono gr[aci]e dispensamus Non obstantib[us] constituc[i]onib[us] & ordinac[i]onib[us] ap[osto]lic[is] by the tenor of these presents, We grant dispensation by the gift of special grace and by virtue of our Apostolic authority, notwithstanding Apostolic decrees and ordinances; and for the good memory Thanks a lot, Art Lengkeek

Hi Lyn Yes, I do agree. Wills for my parish don't start until 1536 and then are quite sparse (I think there is just one for 1536) so I haven't the advantages of comparison that you do. Do you have sermons being said, instead of the prayers and mass? Mass was extremely uncommon and I think these could well be catholic testators but prayers were a different matter. This seems to have been not uncommon here. Giving to the poor does seem to be the province of the better off and the scale of charitable giving varies in the same way. It never fails to amaze me how different the dioceses are in the way they recorded their probate documents and also the amount of material that survives for the different parishes. I am quite envious of those that have registers that go back into the 1500s. Mine start around 1620 as do the ones for Stockport. There is a whole aspect of history that is missing for our parishes that has clearly survived for others. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyn Boothman" <annys@boothman27.fsnet.co.uk> To: "'norman.lee1'" <norman.lee1@virgin.net>; <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 8:14 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] Blacks? Audrey I suspect that this is something else that varies around the country, and presumably different dioceses took different views and accepted different things. I have read all the wills that exist in the obvious archives for one Suffolk parish, some 700+, and there are big differences pre and post the 1560s. Before that of course you get the changes at the end of Henry's reign then Edward then Mary, so it's all very confusing in relation to what you could say, and what you could say when you wrote your will if that was a while before you died. What comes out in that one parish is that the giving to the poor as a regular thing disappears over 20 years or so; it keeps going longest amongst the gentry and a few yeomen families. There is only one reference to being prayed for after 1560, and he is definitely a Catholic, and no references to having masses said by priests or being prayed for by priests - this is protestant East Anglia of course. Rituals of death and mourning of course continue, but the practice of having masses said or being prayed for to get you through purgatory quicker is something else. Lyn B

A couple of comments on recent contributions: (1) Mr.Collins in 'Pride and Prejudice' would have been the next eligible beneficiary under a "tail male" entail: the most common sort of arrangement. (2) Since early times it was possible for the current beneficiary under a "strict settlement" and his next entitled heir to act together to "bar the entail". Following the Settled Land Act 1925 it remained possible to set up a settlement limited effectively to 2 generations. Entailed settlements were not fully abolished until the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. (3) The Duke of Marlborough did not invoke the Settled Lane Act but, in a highly unusual move, applied to the High Court to vary the terms of the family trust so as to pass over his oldest son in order to preserve the estate, i.e. by getting the court to declare that the Marquis of Blandford was unfit and incapable of managing his affairs properly such that he would be likely to commit "waste", i.e. fritter away the trust property. Jamie Blandford therefore will eventually inherit the title of Duke of Marlborough, but has been effectively disinherited by being passed over in favour of his younger half-brother financially. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.f9.co.uk/ons/

Eve McLaughlin wrote: > Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of > Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since > the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have > taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, > but her grasp of law lacked something. For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of understanding an entail, see this link: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet Chris Phillips

Audrey I suspect that this is something else that varies around the country, and presumably different dioceses took different views and accepted different things. I have read all the wills that exist in the obvious archives for one Suffolk parish, some 700+, and there are big differences pre and post the 1560s. Before that of course you get the changes at the end of Henry's reign then Edward then Mary, so it's all very confusing in relation to what you could say, and what you could say when you wrote your will if that was a while before you died. What comes out in that one parish is that the giving to the poor as a regular thing disappears over 20 years or so; it keeps going longest amongst the gentry and a few yeomen families. There is only one reference to being prayed for after 1560, and he is definitely a Catholic, and no references to having masses said by priests or being prayed for by priests - this is protestant East Anglia of course. Rituals of death and mourning of course continue, but the practice of having masses said or being prayed for to get you through purgatory quicker is something else. Lyn B

In message <002501c4b9a0$9f2933c0$2de4fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >I believe it was possible to break the entail the present owner of the property (i.e., fther, who was life tenant under the entail) had to combine with his eldest son (when over 21) who was heir in remainder, and petition to break an entail. It was sad to see cases where daughters were dispossessed because there was no son (or next male heir) who would agree to this. Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, but her grasp of law lacked something. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message of 24 Oct, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: > I believe it was possible to break the entail by applying to > Parliament. Is this correct Parliament has to be Sovereign so indeed yes. > and when was entailment abolished in the UK? In the 1920s when perpetual trusts were abolished as part of a major revision of trusts. The duke of Marlborough had to appeal to this Act when he disconnected his eldest son from succeeding to the estates. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

I believe it was possible to break the entail by applying to Parliament. Is this correct and when was entailment abolished in the UK? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] thirds - the other two > In message <CLEOIFGLEIJMHKEDEPDJAEDPEBAA.woodcom@ihug.co.nz>, Chris > Bartlett <woodcom@ihug.co.nz> writes > >Hello All > > > >An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son > >(Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note > >was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold > >100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two > >years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family > >who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got > >his own back. > > A father could onl;y do so much, even if he hated his son's guts. He > could sell or leave elsewhere freehold land, but he could not touch > entailed land or copyhold land with the consent of his heir. Sometimes > an eldest son is not mentioned in a will BECAUSE he will get the main > estate anyway. It does look odd when the younger ones are left sums of > money or freehold bits, and the eldest (my dear son Fred) is just told > to pay them the money, but this is because he is doing very well indeed > automatically. > Maybe Thomas bought in some freehold, and then sold it again so Dick > didn't get it. But he could not touch the bulk of the estate. And Dick > was automatically administrator to the (unmarried) brothers as next of > kin - nothing could be done about that either. > There is also no way a peer can cut off his heir even if (as with the > present Lord Blandford, the father (Duke of Marlborough) is said to > disapprove of his racketty way of life). So if you have a family story > that John would have been an Earl but he married the cook and his father > disowned him' treat it with the suspicion it deserves. Check the > convict registers closely. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

<<I have found in the wills that I have read for the 17th century that, even though the catholic religion was no longer practiced, people were still following a number of the rituals in one way or another. There seem to be a number of requests for priests to say masses or prayers or similar ...>> It's intriguing to hear that some wills from your area were still requesting masses and prayers in the 17th century, Audrey, and they've made me think a bit, but I can't help wondering whether they weren't the wills of Catholic recusants. I think you mentioned once before that your area is western Derbyshire and eastern Cheshire: if south-east Lancashire was a stronghold of recusancy at this time then one would expect to find higher than normal numbers of Catholics in the adjacent counties of Cheshire and Derbyshire as well. (Incidentally, Alejandro has confirmed that the Lancashire testator whose will sparked off this debate was indeed a Catholic). <<... and we have to remember that these wills would have to go to the diocesan office to be proved and so the authorities of the Anglican church would read them. If they hadn't gone to the diocesan office, then they wouldn't now be available for us to peruse. Presumably the reformed church was still following a number of practices of the previous "unreformed" church. It was said by someone that Henry VIII remained a catholic until the day he died. Evolution is generally a slow process.>> If I understand you aright, you are saying that the Church of England's doctrine and practices evolved away from Catholicism slowly, and that in the 17th century Anglican practice still incorporated a number of Catholic practices that would later be dropped. That's not really right. By the second half of the 16th century Anglican doctrine was already very little different from what it is now (if you ignore very recent changes like the ordination of women and gays). The change wasn't evolutionary - it happened quite suddenly. Not, as you say, in the reign of Henry VIII - although he made the break from Rome and established the Church of England as a separate body, he didn't really reform the church's dogma and doctrines, which remained essentially Catholic at his death. The Reformation of the English church took place after his death, in the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth (principally the latter, since Edward's reforms were reversed under Mary, and reimposed in a slightly watered down form under Elizabeth). That change established pretty much the modern doctrines of the Church of England, and it took place within a generation. Of course the ordinary people's beliefs didn't necessarily alter overnight (though by 1620 England had undoubtedly become an overwhelmingly Protestant country) but their outward conformity to the more prominent doctrinal principles of Protestantism certainly did - constant investigation by the authorities ensured that. For example, in Eammon Duffy's 'Voices of Morebath' you can find a detailed description of how even a strongly Catholic parish in strongly Catholic Devon immediately toed the line in all outward respects. <<Rituals attached to death and mourning persisted for a very long time, as witness the practice of buying mourning rings for a large number of people any time from the early 18th up and into the 19th century. I realise that Queen Victoria most likely resurrected mourning rituals, as well as possibly creating a few of her own, but the jet industry of Witby was built upon the production of mourning jewelry in the 19th century.>> The Anglican faith was created by changing some aspects of the Catholic one - but not all of them, so it's no surprise to discover practices common to both. But some aspects of doctrine, some practices and rituals, are fundamental to the difference between Catholic and Protestant and have always been so. Disbelief in purgatory and the efficacy of masses and prayers for the dead was one of the more prominent Protestant principles which distinguished Anglicanism from Catholicism. From the 1547 Homilies and Injunctions (which first set out the reformed church's doctrines) onwards the Church of England constantly forbade belief in the doctrine of purgatory and the saying of masses and prayers for the dead, and frequent investigations by the Church authorities checked that these requirements were being complied with. Whether or not this affected people's private beliefs, it certainly had an effect on their wills. For instance, in the 1520s 71% of Devon wills provided for masses or prayers, but by the 1560s the proportion had dropped to nil (Whiting, 'The Blind Devotion of the People', pp 30-35). Of course some people still requested masses or prayers in their wills - and these people were almost certainly Catholic. The absence of bequests of this type didn't necessarily point to Protestantism - the testator might just have wished to avoid trouble with the authorities (I think I remember reading that they dug up the body of one Gloucestershire man whose will said the wrong thing - but that was an extreme example, from the more heated times in the middle of the 16th century ) - but their presence definitely did point to Catholicism. There is a good discussion of this in Eammon Duffy's 'The Stripping of the Altars' (Ch. 15). What I think is interesting about your wills, Audrey, is that as you say they would have had to be proved in the established church's courts - which shows how by the 17th century that church, while happy to oppress papists in many other ways, at least didn't extend its oppression beyond the grave, instead allowing Catholics at least to express their faith in their wills. Best wishes, Matt

In message <CLEOIFGLEIJMHKEDEPDJAEDPEBAA.woodcom@ihug.co.nz>, Chris Bartlett <woodcom@ihug.co.nz> writes >Hello All > >An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son >(Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note >was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold >100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two >years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family >who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got >his own back. A father could onl;y do so much, even if he hated his son's guts. He could sell or leave elsewhere freehold land, but he could not touch entailed land or copyhold land with the consent of his heir. Sometimes an eldest son is not mentioned in a will BECAUSE he will get the main estate anyway. It does look odd when the younger ones are left sums of money or freehold bits, and the eldest (my dear son Fred) is just told to pay them the money, but this is because he is doing very well indeed automatically. Maybe Thomas bought in some freehold, and then sold it again so Dick didn't get it. But he could not touch the bulk of the estate. And Dick was automatically administrator to the (unmarried) brothers as next of kin - nothing could be done about that either. There is also no way a peer can cut off his heir even if (as with the present Lord Blandford, the father (Duke of Marlborough) is said to disapprove of his racketty way of life). So if you have a family story that John would have been an Earl but he married the cook and his father disowned him' treat it with the suspicion it deserves. Check the convict registers closely. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I have found in the wills that I have read for the 17th century that, even though the catholic religion was no longer practiced, people were still following a number of the rituals in one way or another. There seem to be a number of requests for priests to say masses or prayers or similar and we have to remember that these wills would have to go to the diocesan office to be proved and so the authorities of the Anglican church would read them. If they hadn't gone to the diocesan office, then they wouldn't now be available for us to peruse. Presumably the reformed church was still following a number of practices of the previous "unreformed" church. It was said by someone that Henry VIII remained a catholic until the day he died. Evolution is generally a slow process. Rituals attached to death and mourning persisted for a very long time, as witness the practice of buying mourning rings for a large number of people any time from the early 18th up and into the 19th century. I realise that Queen Victoria most likely resurrected mourning rituals, as well as possibly creating a few of her own, but the jet industry of Witby was built upon the production of mourning jewelry in the 19th century. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyn Boothman" <annys@boothman27.fsnet.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:08 AM Subject: RE: [OEL] Blacks? > Alejandro > > If you were relatively well off you might give money to poor people who were > to mourn you, this could be financial and/or clothing. Blacks is presumably > the mourning cloths, as you said. If you look at the wills of richer people > you get vast amounts of black cloth distributed, it was one of the most > expensive parts of the funeral expenses for an aristocrat for example. > > Was this man a catholic? Having people to pray for you has echoes of the > catholic belief in purgatory, where the more prays were said for you after > you had died, the faster you got through purgatory ... So before the > Reformation most middling sort and gentry wills will have money to priests > to say masses, and for people to pray for the individual. This belief > vanished as an official one with the Church of England - so perhaps he is > either catholic or old fashioned. I sometimes suspect that some will makers > copy phrases out of their parents' wills ... Lyn B > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

My ggg grandfather George Henty of Ferring, Sussex, who died in 1829, left a significant fortune (36,000 pounds, part ownership of the Worthing Bank, breweries and a lot of property), to his wife and surviving children - several daughters and three younger sons. His second eldest son was married and already a partner in the family bank and was mentioned as such but received no bequest. The eldest son seemed to have been in disfavour, although he did get more than twelve pence: "I will and direct my said Wife Ann Henty to allow out of the Monies to be received by her under this my Will the Sum of One hundred pounds annually unto my Son William Henty in case he shall conduct and demean himself at all times to her satisfaction but not otherwise". I am still trying to find out what William did wrong!! Cheers, Liz in Melbourne Quoting Chris Bartlett <woodcom@ihug.co.nz>: > Hello All > > An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son > (Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note > was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold > 100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two > years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family > who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got > his own back. > > regards > Chris Bartlett > > > Where someone is really 'cut off' it usually says 'twelve pence of > > English money and no more, because he had been ungrateful to his mother > > and myself' The name had to be mentioned, otherwise the son could > > contest the will on the grounds that his name had simply been missed in > > copying. The above phrase makes it quite clear - forgotten, no, > > disliked, yes. > > > > -- > > Eve McLaughlin > > > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com > >

Hello All An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son (Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold 100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got his own back. regards Chris Bartlett > Where someone is really 'cut off' it usually says 'twelve pence of > English money and no more, because he had been ungrateful to his mother > and myself' The name had to be mentioned, otherwise the son could > contest the will on the grounds that his name had simply been missed in > copying. The above phrase makes it quite clear - forgotten, no, > disliked, yes. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > > >

Hi all, Thankyou to all those who replied with my document question, and especially to Eve for going through two pages of my typed Manor Court data and putting it in simple English. Now I can definately understand it all more, I have just done some more records from the early 1800's and those are even more wordy than the earlier ones. Perhaps its just that they repeated themselves all the time. I now have another parish to search to find my John and his children, it is interesting that living in Houghton, Hunts he had common fields in Warboys a considerable distance away. Thanks again for your willingness to help, Jan Robb.....N.Z.