<<I'd be grateful if someone could tell me the year when English clergy were permitted to, and did, marry. Don Tomkinson>> Dear Don, clergy were first explicitly permitted to marry in 1549, when Edward VI's government passed the Act to take away all Positive Laws against the Marriage of Priests. Mary reversed the change when she succeeded to the throne a few years later (in the few years since Edward's act had been passed almost a quarter of the parish priests, along with 4 bishops, had married and were deprived of their livings by her), but when Elizabeth succeeded clergy marriage was again permitted, notwithstanding that she herself disliked it. The Thirty Nine Articles of 1563, which were given legal effect by Parliament in 1571 and still form the basis of Anglican doctrine today, specifically stated that clergy could marry. Before 1549 clerical marriage had been forbidden, and at times severely punished (Henry VII's Act of Six Articles of 1539 not only reiterated the ban but imposed the death penalty on a second conviction). Nevertheless clerical marriage probably did occur, though perhaps not quite as much as has been suggested: there is a difference between married priests and fornicating ones. For some reason the medieval mind was far more scandalised by the former than the latter, and most of the priests' children referred to were probably illegitimate and many wives no more than cohabitees. Matt Tompkins

In message <002001c4a3ca$5c0c5590$025d2b50@john>, John <overholt@tiscali.co.uk> writes >In response to my posting Eve says in part," >>He had a son who became Dean of Lincoln. During the Bishop's time one of >>the earliest "drives" was started. >True enough (and wasn't he a royal bastard to begin with? > >I'm not sure if she is referring to the Bishop or his son the Dean as being >a royal bastard. Bishop - was this Geoffrey, who certainly was? (haven't checked and have forgotten what the stated time for the Bishop was originally) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In response to my posting Eve says in part," >He had a son who became Dean of Lincoln. During the Bishop's time one of >the earliest "drives" was started. True enough (and wasn't he a royal bastard to begin with? I'm not sure if she is referring to the Bishop or his son the Dean as being a royal bastard. Neither were to my knowledge. Are you perhaps thinking of one of the bastards who was brought up in the Bishop's household and went to Rome on some mission or other? Caused a great stink when questioned as to his credentials. John ---------------------------------------- My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter 1746 spam mails have been blocked so far. Download free www.spamfighter.com today!

In message <001d01c4a0be$6e135e50$a2a42e50@john>, John <overholt@tiscali.co.uk> writes >Further to what Eve has said on the subject, there have been married clergy >for hundreds of years and certainly way before the Reformation. It was common for parish clergy, but frowned on for manstics, and ooh wicked, smack wrist, for cathedral clergy. Which, of course, never stopped a determined lecher. > >There were periodic "drives" initiated from Rome to have the practice >outlawed but it was never wholly successful. > One example that springs readily to my mind is the 2nd Bishop of Lincoln >(1092-1123) >who had also been Chief Justiciar,Chancellor and a confidant of 2 kings >.He was initially a clerk in the royal household. >He had a son who became Dean of Lincoln. During the Bishop's time one of >the earliest "drives" was started. True enough (and wasn't he a royal bastard to begin with?) But it was polite to call the offspring 'nephews' - and even the Popes had those, in quantity -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Further to what Eve has said on the subject, there have been married clergy for hundreds of years and certainly way before the Reformation. There were periodic "drives" initiated from Rome to have the practice outlawed but it was never wholly successful. One example that springs readily to my mind is the 2nd Bishop of Lincoln (1092-1123) who had also been Chief Justiciar,Chancellor and a confidant of 2 kings .He was initially a clerk in the royal household. He had a son who became Dean of Lincoln. During the Bishop's time one of the earliest "drives" was started. All this is well documented by Henry of Huntingdon. Frequent mentions are made in early Visitations of the clergy being married or co-habiting. ---------------------------------------- My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter 1733 spam mails have been blocked so far. Download free www.spamfighter.com today!

In message <004601c49f28$ca351080$6e67e150@j3k4c7>, Donald Tomkinson <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> writes >I'd be grateful if someone could tell me the year when English clergy >were permitted to, and did, marry. the rot set in in 1534 or so - monks emerging from the dissolved monastries had never been allowed to marry, but some now did. Cloistered clergy were not allowed to marry at all before this. Parish clergy, even in mediaeval times, were always likely to marry (needing a wife to look after the animals on the glebe etc.) Marriage was also frowned on even soon after 1534 for the upper clergy, like Bishops (which is not to say they didn't from the time when Henry VIII split from the Pope). Most people accepted marriage for the clergy after 1560ish -However, famously, Elizabeth on meeting the wife of a Bishop quite some way down her reign, was very sniffy 'Madame I may not call you., Mistress I scorn to call you, therefore I know not what i may call you' - and swep' past Curiously, Fellows of Oxford and Cambridge were not supposed to marry while they retained their University appointment (till at least c1870) A few did, slipping over the border into Bucks to do so, and keeping their women tucked away out of the City. > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I'd be grateful if someone could tell me the year when English clergy were permitted to, and did, marry. Don Tomkinson

It's not a question of "then" and "now". The Revenue does not enter into the picture until probate is entered becaue until an executor/administrator draws up an inventory, gathers in the assets, and applies to prove the estate, no-one knows how much there is to be taxed. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.C.Christopher Glass" <chris@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 17 September 2004 13:21 Subject: Re: [OEL] scotish inventory/probate > Thanks All > i had no idea the probate/tax man was understand to allow deferement of > administration > cant see that happening today > > chris Glass > ruislip > > ______________________________

And a third was required to be divided between the children, with the other third going to the 'dead', a strange sounding phrase meaning that the testator could do with this third whatever he liked. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] scotish inventory/probate > In message <002101c49d53$decade20$5eccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Was there not only a custom, almost always adhered to, that a wife would be > >allowed her clothing and enough goods to keep her in the manner to which she > >had become acustomed. The same went for the dependent children. Even though > >it may not have been confirmed in law, the custome was sufficiently strong > >for it to have been considered a family disgrace for a widow not to be > >provided for. > a wife was entitled to a third of the estate for life. And if the > husband didn't want her to take it literally (a third of the sheep, a > third of the cows, the forequarters of the ox etc) then he had to > provide an alternative money/goods package which didn't have her > reaching for the nearest lawyer. > Often, pre 1882 and even later, a widow was left the life rent of all > the household goods, but only if she didn't marry again. Only when she > died did the property get divided between the children. > But she could not sell or give anything away in her lifetime > -- > 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/ > >

In message <002101c49d53$decade20$5eccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Was there not only a custom, almost always adhered to, that a wife would be >allowed her clothing and enough goods to keep her in the manner to which she >had become acustomed. The same went for the dependent children. Even though >it may not have been confirmed in law, the custome was sufficiently strong >for it to have been considered a family disgrace for a widow not to be >provided for. a wife was entitled to a third of the estate for life. And if the husband didn't want her to take it literally (a third of the sheep, a third of the cows, the forequarters of the ox etc) then he had to provide an alternative money/goods package which didn't have her reaching for the nearest lawyer. Often, pre 1882 and even later, a widow was left the life rent of all the household goods, but only if she didn't marry again. Only when she died did the property get divided between the children. But she could not sell or give anything away in her lifetime -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Was there not only a custom, almost always adhered to, that a wife would be allowed her clothing and enough goods to keep her in the manner to which she had become acustomed. The same went for the dependent children. Even though it may not have been confirmed in law, the custome was sufficiently strong for it to have been considered a family disgrace for a widow not to be provided for. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] scotish inventory/probate > In message <00af01c49c55$f14fab60$d65a893e@escom>, "J.C.Christopher > Glass" <chris@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk> writes > >Hi all > >ive just downloaded an Deposition/inventory ( from scotdocs online) > >for the death of William Glass died 1889 kinross > > > >The strange thing is this Deposition, by his daughter, > > of his assetts was not made till 1901 > >following his wife's death in 1901 > >why wasnt it a deposition of her mothers assetts in 1901 > possibly because father left his wife the use of them for life only - so > when she died, they were still his assets 'borrowed' for the last 12 > years. It is more of an English attitude than a Scottish one, but there > you go. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com >

Chris, Today the taxman deems that you inherit on the date of decease of the person. This is irrespective of when probate and settlement occur. I don't know what they would do if probate duties applied - I expect that this estate would be too small to attract probate duties. I suspect that the duty would simply not apply until probate was applied for. In most places probate is only required when the value of the estate exceeds a certain amount. With only furniture and effects it would seem that the beneficiaries were "tidying up" after mum died. They probably didn't do it earlier so as to allow mum unhindered use. Steve Nethercote Melbourne, Australia *** Oak Tree: A nut that stood its ground *** -----Original Message----- From: J.C.Christopher Glass [mailto:chris@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: Friday, 17 September 2004 10:21 PM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] scotish inventory/probate Thanks All i had no idea the probate/tax man was understand to allow deferement of administration cant see that happening today chris Glass ruislip ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

In message <00af01c49c55$f14fab60$d65a893e@escom>, "J.C.Christopher Glass" <chris@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk> writes >Hi all >ive just downloaded an Deposition/inventory ( from scotdocs online) >for the death of William Glass died 1889 kinross > >The strange thing is this Deposition, by his daughter, > of his assetts was not made till 1901 >following his wife's death in 1901 >why wasnt it a deposition of her mothers assetts in 1901 possibly because father left his wife the use of them for life only - so when she died, they were still his assets 'borrowed' for the last 12 years. It is more of an English attitude than a Scottish one, but there you go. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Chris, Sometimes families choose to defer settlement of estates until after both parents are dead. This might happen for a few of reasons. 1) Husband dies leaving assets to wife. Or 2) Husband dies and leaves wife a life rent over the assets (ie use of the assets until the husband dies and then distributed under husbands will.) or 3) The beneficiaries of the father's estate (probably his children) don't want to upset mum by claiming their inheritance. The children might already have use of the assets and not be disadvantaged by delaying legal transfer of the assets. 4) No immediate need to settle the estate Typically the reasons include not upsetting/distressing the surviving parent and/or no immediate need to sell/dispose of the asset. The eventual beneficiaries often have use of the income earning assets anyway. Eg if there is a family farm or family business the children could continue operating this without waiting for settlement of the estate. In tracing the transfer and inheritance of property through Sasines I have on quite a number of occasions I have seen the property transferred through inheritance some 15 or 20 years after the death of the parent. Often it is disposed of very soon after its inheritance is recorded in the Sasines. Also, some families have the idea that all assets of the couple belong to the husband. I don't think this has any legal substance in recent times and it shouldn't have any place in the settlements of estates as recent as 1900. But I could be wrong on this. Steve Nethercote Melbourne, Australia *** Oak Tree: A nut that stood its ground *** -----Original Message----- From: J.C.Christopher Glass [mailto:chris@jccglass.fsnet.co.uk] Sent: Friday, 17 September 2004 11:31 AM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] scotish inventory/probate Hi all ive just downloaded an Deposition/inventory ( from scotdocs online) for the death of William Glass died 1889 kinross The strange thing is this Deposition, by his daughter, of his assetts was not made till 1901 following his wife's death in 1901 why wasnt it a deposition of her mothers assetts in 1901 any thoughts chris Glass Ruislip Uk ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH

Steve: > Also, some families have the idea that all assets of the couple belong to > the husband. I don't think this has any legal substance in recent times and > it shouldn't have any place in the settlements of estates as recent as 1900. > But I could be wrong on this. Before the passing of the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, "some families" would have been entirely right. Married women could not own property (and property didn't just mean "real estate" it meant possessions). Anything they might have been thought to own was actually owned by their husbands. This changed from 1882, and the process was completed by another Act of 1893 giving married women the same property rights as men. Best wishes Paul Prescott --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 10-09-2004

Thanks All i had no idea the probate/tax man was understand to allow deferement of administration cant see that happening today chris Glass ruislip

Hi Chris >>The strange thing is this Deposition, by his daughter, of his assetts was not made till 1901 following his wife's death in 1901 why wasnt it a deposition of her mothers assetts in 1901<< Because if his estate after his death had remained unadministered, legally it would still belong to him and not his widow. Kind regards Polly

Hi all ive just downloaded an Deposition/inventory ( from scotdocs online) for the death of William Glass died 1889 kinross The strange thing is this Deposition, by his daughter, of his assetts was not made till 1901 following his wife's death in 1901 why wasnt it a deposition of her mothers assetts in 1901 any thoughts chris Glass Ruislip Uk

What is the context? This word immediately call to mind Dutch SPECULOOS: delicious small biscuits, flavoured with brown sugar and cinnamon. SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: <GaryIvoDe@aol.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 15 September 2004 02:07 Subject: Sperkulers > Does anyone know what sperkulers are? Since the Bergen Co. Dutch > descendants were still speaking Dutch in the early 1800's I wonder if > it is a Dutch word. Ree > > ______________________________

In message <01c101c49bdc$9d1f4880$cfd6ae51@lovegrove>, Sandra Lovegrove <lovegrove@one-name.org> writes >Thanks for the various responses to my "Tallow chandler" enquiry. It >seems this was more or less what I had imagined, viz. a general sort >of dealer. > >However [ big "however"? ] when described thus on his 1845 marriage >certificate, both this young chap and his bride were living in Regent >Street, central London which presumably then as now was very upmarket. Not as upmarket as now, with tiny shops mixed in with big ones and residential property among them - and a whole warren of back street off them. As the principal business was selling candles, lighting and firing materials, maybe he would have had enough trade to limit what other lines he carried. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society