In message <d7.12d4a446.2e5e8bb1@aol.com>, YeagerLA@aol.com writes >Hi >I have read that in the 17th century a house displaying the Rhinoceros of >the Apothecaries Company meant that the owner was a doctor. Would he (I'm >assuming they were all men - could be wrong!) have been called a 'doctor' They would possibly have called themselves doctors, or have patients who referred to them as such, but apothecary was correct. And in something like 1670, the Physicians of London raised a major fuss about other medical men who called themselves doctors and purported to diagnose, rather than just hand out herbal remedies or mistures prescribe by actual doctors. They claimed that they were the only professional doctors - 'surgeons' were then a sub group of the Barbers' Company, and Apothecaries were an offshoot of the Grocers' company, so there. Given the great shortage of any sort of medical men, apothecaries still had an important part to play, and one of the things they did to perfection was to 'invent' new treatments and mixtures, which would have a vogue if they cured some important person. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

The surgeon and physician thing was a major difference, they were completely different professions, or throught they were. There are loads of medical history websites but I haven't got any references to hand, a bit of googling should find something. Surgeons were evolving from barber-surgeons, which many still were. None of them, as was said, would have called themselves a doctor. Physicians were more expensive and only for the middling and upper sorts (by and large) so probably it was rather like now, people use pharmacists for all sorts of medical advice, and apothecaries presumably were treated in the same way. Like physicians their advice would have been all about the humors and blood and urine ... (I think) Lyn B

I have read that in the 17th century a house displaying the Rhinoceros of the Apothecaries Company meant that the owner was a doctor. Would he (I'm assuming they were all men - could be wrong!) have been called a 'doctor' in those times?>> Hello Leigh, I can't claim to know much about the Apothecaries' Company, or whether displaying a rhino indicated membership, but I'm pretty sure that in the 17th century you were only called doctor if you had the appropriate university degree, and that very few apothecaries would have had any degree at all, let alone a doctorate. I believe medical practitioners of the period called themselves Physician if they had a degree, or Surgeon if they did not, while Apothecaries were what we would nowadays call dispensing chemists (or maybe druggists in America?), though I gather their trade extended rather further beyond mere sale of drugs, into diagnosis and prescription and general treatment, than is the case today. Regards, Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

Got a stray 'u' in there from somewhere - sorry about that! Leigh

Hi I have read that in the 17th century a house displaying the Rhinoceros of the Apothecaries Company meant that the owner was a doctor. Would he (I'm assuming they were all men - could be wrong!) have been called a 'doctor' in those times? Many thanks Kind regards Leigh Driver PS Thanks again to all who helped with the Latin translation!

In message <004101c4879a$bb6b47e0$58d0fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Yes, they did. Not legally, they didn't/. > However, what age of child were you thinking of? There were >rules for these things. Another thing to consider, is the use of the same >Christian name amongst families. Are you sure that it was an offspring of >the deceased? -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

>I'd be grateful if someone could advise me if children sometimes acted >as appraisers for their fathers' goods etc., in the 16th. century. It would not be normal, since the appraisers were supposed to be 'two indifferent men' meaning those having no financial interest in the estate. A brother (having the same name as a son) or a cousin could well be an appraiser. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

The testator Thomas Tomkinson,died 1556, makes bequests to "his children" and goes on to mention two sons, Rauff and John, leaving the possibility that he had more. One of the appraisers is Roger Tomkinson, obviously a relation but I wondered if he could be a son as it is a family name. Rauff and John might have been of full age as there is no mention otherwise, and John is made one of three executors. Don Tomkinson ----- Original Message ----- From: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> To: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net>; <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] WILLS 16C > Yes, they did. However, what age of child were you thinking of?> Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:36 PM > Subject: [OEL] WILLS 16C > > > > I'd be grateful if someone could advise me if children sometimes acted > > as appraisers for their fathers' goods etc., in the 16th. century. > > > > Don Tomkinson

I'm very grateful to you once again, Eve. Don Tomkinson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> Cc: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] LATIN ON WILL OF1732 > In message <004201c4861c$57b67c80$c162e150@j3k4c7>, Donald Tomkinson > <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> writes > >I would be very grateful for a translation of the following > >endorsement on the will of William Tomkinson: > > > >1 March 1732 > > > >Cum Thomas Tomkinson unicus Executor intranominatus fatiscesserit, Non > >nulla Bona etc inadministrata relinqueus, Maria Brock, Uxor Richard > >Brock, Filia Testatoris intradicts fidens fecit de bene etc in comunis > >Juris forma > Because Thomas tomkinson sole executor within named has ceased/given up > through death/workings of fate (i.e. a very serious illness or drunk in > charge?) leaving some goods unadministered, Mary Brock, wife of > Richard Brock, daughter of the said testator is sworn in due form these > (goods) well and Faithfully to administer > > > > Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?] > in the presence of us, Peter? or Per for Periam/Peregrine/Percival > Gaskell (who should be the archdeacon/legal official > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <a06110403bd4c33ed6d80@[209.226.251.142]>, John and Margaret Moore <moorejo@reach.net> writes >>Rather than "Before us" I suggest "(Taken) in our court by Gaskell >>......." >> Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?]>> > >No, it is definitely 'before us'. coram nobis IS (publicly) before us, and this is the right translation, but the 'us' can be a royal, or judicial plural, as he would have been the official appointed by the Bishop or Archdeacon. >And I think it likely that Per is a >contraction of Mr Gaskell's forename. agreed on that/ Perecival, Perriam, Peregrine, -any advance -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Yes, they did. However, what age of child were you thinking of? There were rules for these things. Another thing to consider, is the use of the same Christian name amongst families. Are you sure that it was an offspring of the deceased? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: [OEL] WILLS 16C > I'd be grateful if someone could advise me if children sometimes acted > as appraisers for their fathers' goods etc., in the 16th. century. > > Don Tomkinson > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

I'd be grateful if someone could advise me if children sometimes acted as appraisers for their fathers' goods etc., in the 16th. century. Don Tomkinson

>Rather than "Before us" I suggest "(Taken) in our court by Gaskell >......." > Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?]>> No, it is definitely 'before us'. And I think it likely that Per is a contraction of Mr Gaskell's forename. Regards, John Moore

Rather than "Before us" I suggest "(Taken) in our court by Gaskell ......." Gaskell who was probably the surrogate administering the oath, etc. of Mrs. BROCK. 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: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 20 August 2004 13:51 Subject: RE: [OEL] LATIN ON WILL OF1732 > <<Cum Thomas Tomkinson unicus Executor intranominatus fatiscesserit, Non nulla Bona etc inadministrata relinqueus, Maria Brock, Uxor Richard > Brock, Filia Testatoris intradicts fidens fecit de bene etc in comunis > Juris forma Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?]>> > > > Whereas Thomas Tomkinson the within-named sole executor has died, leaving some goods etc unadministered, Mary Brock, wife of Richard Brock, daughter of the withinsaid testator [swore] faithfully [to administer] the goods etc in the form of the common law > > Before us, ?Peter Gaskell > > > Matt Tompkins > Blaston, Leics >

In message <004201c4861c$57b67c80$c162e150@j3k4c7>, Donald Tomkinson <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> writes >I would be very grateful for a translation of the following >endorsement on the will of William Tomkinson: > >1 March 1732 > >Cum Thomas Tomkinson unicus Executor intranominatus fatiscesserit, Non >nulla Bona etc inadministrata relinqueus, Maria Brock, Uxor Richard >Brock, Filia Testatoris intradicts fidens fecit de bene etc in comunis >Juris forma Because Thomas tomkinson sole executor within named has ceased/given up through death/workings of fate (i.e. a very serious illness or drunk in charge?) leaving some goods unadministered, Mary Brock, wife of Richard Brock, daughter of the said testator is sworn in due form these (goods) well and Faithfully to administer > > Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?] in the presence of us, Peter? or Per for Periam/Peregrine/Percival Gaskell (who should be the archdeacon/legal official -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

<<Cum Thomas Tomkinson unicus Executor intranominatus fatiscesserit, Non nulla Bona etc inadministrata relinqueus, Maria Brock, Uxor Richard Brock, Filia Testatoris intradicts fidens fecit de bene etc in comunis Juris forma Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?]>> Whereas Thomas Tomkinson the within-named sole executor has died, leaving some goods etc unadministered, Mary Brock, wife of Richard Brock, daughter of the withinsaid testator [swore] faithfully [to administer] the goods etc in the form of the common law Before us, ?Peter Gaskell Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

I would be very grateful for a translation of the following endorsement on the will of William Tomkinson: 1 March 1732 Cum Thomas Tomkinson unicus Executor intranominatus fatiscesserit, Non nulla Bona etc inadministrata relinqueus, Maria Brock, Uxor Richard Brock, Filia Testatoris intradicts fidens fecit de bene etc in comunis Juris forma Coram nobis Per Gaskell [?] Thomas was named as sole executor in the will. Don Tomkinson

I think that both missing words are Yorke Nuala

So perhaps Crossmear was a way of saying where in Cockshutt this house was situated, Cockshutt being the name of the larger part and Crossmear being a smaller section of it. Thank you, Audrey. I have placed a map image in: http://hometown.aol.com/amilb36287/myhomepage/photo.html The scale is 1km to the square in the grid, so the towns are pretty close, but they are shown and seem to be separate. Alejandro

I don't know if this comment will help in any way at all but going on from what Eve has written, here is an example of where I live and how places are referred to now or in the recent past. I live on a long lane that dominates the village or township of Mellor. This lane is around two miles long from start to finish and, traditionally, but still among the locals, it is divided into various little sections by locally known names, e.g. Cataract Brow, School Row, White Row. These are not the sort of names that will get you very far if you were to include them in your postal address as only our local post lady who lives further up the lane would know where these places were. The Post Office gave out numbers in the late 1950s and these have now taken root (it took a while for people to get used to using them - a change-over of population has hastened this). When there is a long road, people find it necessary to describe to others just where abouts along it they live or to give directions to any particular house. So perhaps Crossmear was a way of saying where in Cockshutt this house was situated, Cockshutt being the name of the larger part and Crossmear being a smaller section of it. This, of course, is very much as Eve has described but even the smaller parts can be broken down into yet smaller until the particular dwelling has been pinpointed so perhaps now we would give the "address" as Francis Lloyd , Crossmear, Cockshutt, then maybe the largest town or city followed by the county. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Als > > >'als' is an abbreviation of 'alias', which means 'otherwise'. It appears in old > >records almost exclusively to introduce an alternative surname (though I have > >once or twice seen it used for an alternative forename), which is why in modern > >English it has become a noun meaning a substitute name - as you said. I don't > >think I've never seen it used it to indicate alternative names of a place, > >though there's really no logical reason why it shouldn't have been. > It is quite a frequent usage, which I am sure you will started finding > from tomorrow. Lavendon als Landon, Ravenstone als Raunston, > Wyrardisbury als Wraysbury. Aston Sandford als Aston Blank als Cold > Aston in Bucks, for example. (*The last has almost as many aliases as > houses) > > > >My first reaction would be that in this case it means that Francis Lloyd's > >residence was in a place called Cockshutt otherwise Crossmeare. But if you say > >these were two separate places > The logical explanation is that they were not then totally distinct > places, but that one included the other -possibly one was the parish and > one a hamlet in the parish. This again is often found, binding together > places which on the map appear to be distinct. > > -- > 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/ > >