Hello Audrey, There seemed to be periods when the same family name was continued, but then dropped out of favour, didn't there. At the time I'm looking at Roger went through two or three generations, but looking at the names of children in following generations it would have fitted if Roger was one ot Thomas's sons. However this now looks unlikely - pity. Regards, Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > Another thought. My family used the same three names for the males all the > time, no matter which branch of the family there were. They would give them > a number of names and just rearrange them to distinguish between each one. > Is it possible that yours may have been similar? > > Audrey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donald Tomkinson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:07 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > > > Hello Audrey, > > > > There actually was a will in which Thomas left the residue of two > > thirds of his goods to be divided amongst his children. Rauff, his > > son, was to have a cow above his child's part and he named his son > > John, with others, as his overseer. This does not seem to exclude the > > possibility of other children, and Roger would fit in nicely for age > > and the naming of subsequent children. It seems to be a snag to the > > theory as a Roger Tokenson (sic) was an appraiser with others. Of > > course there could have been two Rogers ( I'm sure that Tokenson > > should have been Tomkinson) > > > > The information about a relative acting as an appraiser where there > > was no will is interesting, although I have cases of cousins acting > > even when there was a will. > > > > It does, however, sadly look as if my theory is unlikely. > > > > Best wishes, > > Don > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Norman Lee" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [OEL] 16TH CENTURY SERVANTS ETC. > > > > > >> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > > >