Thanks for the detailed explaination on the tax rolls, etc. DeBrett did use the Lay Subsidy rolls, muster rolls, pipe rolls and close rolls among other items. Of the three Beauchamps mentioned, Thomas appeared on the tax rolls of 1543/4, he left a will in 1545, John died with a will in 1536 and there was no further record on Richard. I suppose that Thomas was older than I originally thought. Thanks so much for your input. WHF Eve McLaughlin wrote: >In message <4106CA72.8080105@cablelynx.com>, W H F Meeks ><meeksmerge@cablelynx.com> writes > > >>I am sure my question has been answered many times but not since I have >>been on list. >> >>In 1524, in Northamptonshire England, my 10 great grandfather, Thomas >>Beauchamp, his brother John and a Richard Beauchamp were on the tax >>rolls at Cosgrave, Northamptonshire. DeBrett Ancestral Research says >>that Richard was "probably" the father of John and Thomas but no proof. >>I am trying to determine the age of Thomas. At that time, at what age >>was one placed on the tax rolls? Thanks for any assistance. >> >> >It doesm't work like that. >If you are talking about the Subsidy of 1524, it was the possession of >property which determined whether the subsidy was collected. Normally, >a son would have to wait till Daddy was dead, or at least until he >acquired property by marriage. There were special circumstances in 1524. >A year or so earlier. the King had asked for patriotic help in waging a >possible war against France, always a popular thing. He asked a 'Muster' >for details or armour and weapons and -kind of incidentally - how much >people were worth in lands and goods. They fell for it and some even >boasted. Next year, a subsidy was raised assessed on these figures, and >anyone with 50 pounds value or more paid a lot extra. So, quick shuffle, >put some of the estate in your sons' names, to get it below 50. In this >case then, the sons could be even under 21, > Possibly, your searcher is comparing the Muster list with the actual >Subsidy list. > >