In message <[email protected]>, Donald Tomkinson <[email protected]> writes >In his will of 1569 Henry Tomkinson bequeaths a coat to his servant >Richard Tomkinson. I understand that in those times it was common to >employ a young relative as a personal servant. Can anyone comment on >this practice and know how young the boys could be? It was common to farm out your teenagers into the households of (better off) relatives - very convenient if your son was an orphan and needed male input. They could start quite young, though on the whole, if they were to be useful, 12 was about the lower limit. And if the lad was inheriting (uncle)'s garments, he was probably somewhere close in size. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

I appreciate the comments regarding the servants and appraisers. I was hoping that sometimes the rule that appraisers should not benefit from a will was broken, as it would have explained a missing relationship. There were actually two other appraisers to the inventory "Plus others", which seems to imply there were more than four. Kind regards, Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS > In message <[email protected]>, Donald Tomkinson > <[email protected]> writes > >In his will of 1569 Henry Tomkinson bequeaths a coat to his servant > >Richard Tomkinson. I understand that in those times it was common to > >employ a young relative as a personal servant. Can anyone comment on > >this practice and know how young the boys could be? > > It was common to farm out your teenagers into the households of (better > off) relatives - very convenient if your son was an orphan and needed > male input. They could start quite young, though on the whole, if they > were to be useful, 12 was about the lower limit. And if the lad was > inheriting (uncle)'s garments, he was probably somewhere close in size. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > >

Dear Don The "plus others" is possibly because the appraisers may feel the need to call in someone with special knowledge of the estate. It doesn't mean that there would be large numbers of them. I've looked at a lot of inventories and have found that there are virtually never more than four although I don't believe there were such hard and fast rules as to disallow it. Generally speaking, the chief executor as long as he doesn't benefit from the will plus someone who is familiar with the estate and/or occupation of the deceased and perhaps a neighbour or friend of the deceased too seems to be the practice. One decedent whose inventory I saw was a physican and another physican from London was called in to assess the value of the man's stock of medicines and medical equipment. I hope this helps. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:05 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >I appreciate the comments regarding the servants and appraisers. > > I was hoping that sometimes the rule that appraisers should not > benefit from a will was broken, as it would have explained a missing > relationship. There were actually two other appraisers to the > inventory "Plus others", which seems to imply there were more than > four. > > Kind regards, > Don > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:49 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS > > >> In message <[email protected]>, Donald Tomkinson >> <[email protected]> writes >> >In his will of 1569 Henry Tomkinson bequeaths a coat to his servant >> >Richard Tomkinson. I understand that in those times it was common > to >> >employ a young relative as a personal servant. Can anyone comment > on >> >this practice and know how young the boys could be? >> >> It was common to farm out your teenagers into the households of > (better >> off) relatives - very convenient if your son was an orphan and > needed >> male input. They could start quite young, though on the whole, if > they >> were to be useful, 12 was about the lower limit. And if the lad was >> inheriting (uncle)'s garments, he was probably somewhere close in > size. >> >> -- >> Eve McLaughlin >> >> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians >> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: > 03/11/2006 > >

Hello Audrey, Many thanks for your comments. Would you rule out completely the possibility that one of the appraisers was the son of the deceased? Regards, Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > Dear Don > > The "plus others" is possibly because the appraisers may feel the need to > call in someone with special knowledge of the estate. It doesn't mean that > there would be large numbers of them. I've looked at a lot of inventories > and have found that there are virtually never more than four although I > don't believe there were such hard and fast rules as to disallow it. > Generally speaking, the chief executor as long as he doesn't benefit from > the will plus someone who is familiar with the > estate and/or occupation of the deceased and perhaps a neighbour or friend > of the deceased too seems to be the practice. One decedent whose inventory I > saw was a physican and another physican from London was called in to assess > the value of the man's stock of medicines and medical equipment. > > I hope this helps. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:05 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > > >I appreciate the comments regarding the servants and appraisers. > > > > I was hoping that sometimes the rule that appraisers should not > > benefit from a will was broken, as it would have explained a missing > > relationship. There were actually two other appraisers to the > > inventory "Plus others", which seems to imply there were more than > > four. > > > > Kind regards, > > Don > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eve McLaughlin" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Cc: "OLD ENGLISH MESSAGE" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS > > > > > >> In message <[email protected]>, Donald Tomkinson > >> <[email protected]> writes > >> >In his will of 1569 Henry Tomkinson bequeaths a coat to his servant > >> >Richard Tomkinson. I understand that in those times it was common > > to > >> >employ a young relative as a personal servant. Can anyone comment > > on > >> >this practice and know how young the boys could be? > >> > >> It was common to farm out your teenagers into the households of > > (better > >> off) relatives - very convenient if your son was an orphan and > > needed > >> male input. They could start quite young, though on the whole, if > > they > >> were to be useful, 12 was about the lower limit. And if the lad was > >> inheriting (uncle)'s garments, he was probably somewhere close in > > size. > >> > >> -- > >> Eve McLaughlin > >> > >> Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > >> Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: > > 03/11/2006 > > > > > > >