Didn't the yeomen hold their land by rights of military service owed to the lord of the manor who, in his turn, owed military services to the crown? All this was before there was a standing army and when the king had to raise an army in the country before he could fight a war. Other tenants that held land and could be longstanding tenants, and were able to pass their land by will to descendants: they held their land by rent, not by services. There were, of course, other forms of tenancy in descending order from these. All of them held their land from the lord of the manor. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy" <roy.cox@btinternet.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: [OEL] tenantsrights [tenantsrights@sbcglobal.net] > Good Afternoon - In reply to Donna of Santa Cruz, CA. > tenantsrights@sbcglobal.net. > > I apologise in advance in case anyone got more than of these but there seems > to be a fault with my outbox - sorry > > I was asked this by some cousins of mine in NC and they said that a Yeoman > was equivalent to a gentleman, not realising of course that a gentleman can > also be a Yeoman and/or Farmer amongst many other things. > > No doubt there will QUITE a few responses to this but I shall quote from the > excellent book "Dictionary of Genealogy" by Terrick VH Fitzhugh. The whole > description amounts to almost a quarter page of detail which I hope will > please. > > YEOMAN > > "In the Plantagenet period, the word meant a knight's servant or retainer. > There were also Yeomen of the King's Chamber, who were minor court officials > under the chamberlain. At that period, there was a class of freemen called > Franklins, and under the Tudors the name of yeoman gradually became attached > to them. > > Broadly speaking, they constituted a stratum of cultivators of the soil, > either freeholders or tenants, who differed from the minor gentry more by > their way of life than by any economic category. > > The yeoman would put his own hand to work that the gentlemen would employ > servants to do, and his wife likewise; but many a young man of gentle and > even armigerous family was styled yeoman, as long as he lived like one > [i.e.., until he inherited his father's estate)- [What would he become then > I must wonder?] > > Below the yeoman class came the equally ill-defined stratum of Husbandman, > whose land-holding was normally smaller. > > The standing of yeomanry is reflected in the later use of the word for the > local volunteer force, mounted on their own horse, as distinct from the > militia (infantry)" > > Kind Regards > > June & Roy > > <http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm> > http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm > > > > Kind Regards > > > > June & Roy > > http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm > > > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > Going away for a while? > Don't forget to UNSUBSCRIBE! > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

> Didn't the yeomen hold their land by rights of military service owed to the > lord of the manor who, in his turn, owed military services to the crown? Hi all, This is my first posting on this list. As I understand it, a yeoman was, in early times, "a servant or attendant in a noble house, ranked as something between a sergeant and a groom, or between a squire and a page" From the Oxford dictionary of English surnames. In later years many farmers called themselves yeoman on census returns because it sounded grander than farmer, but a yeoman farmer was usually a farmer who owned or rented his own land and farmed for himself, not a landlord. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong :o) Jackie Watts.