Many thanks again Audrey. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > Dear Don > > I think the main thing to guard against was that he could not appear as a > beneficiary in the will or be in the line of succession. > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > > > 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > >

Dear Don I've just had a thought about your question and am asking one of my own. You have a probate inventory but is there a will to go with it or does it accompany a bond of administration? If there was no will, different rules seem to apply and you could get a relative as an appraiser as relatives would be those called upon to sort out the effects of the decedent and act in lieu of an executor. Generally speaking, the chief beneficiary of the estate plus two or three others are those named on the bonds that accompany these inventories. These are the administrators and are called upon to produce an inventory of the decedent's goods and chattels. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > Many thanks again Audrey. > > Don > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > >> Dear Don >> >> I think the main thing to guard against was that he could not appear > as a >> beneficiary in the will or be in the line of succession. >> >> Audrey >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. >> >> >> > 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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >