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 > >