In a message dated 10/24/2007 12:02:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carpenter-request(a)rootsweb.com writes:
Today's Topics:
1. Re: eldest/youngest (GeneZub(a)aol.com)
2. Re: eldest/youngest (GeneZub(a)aol.com)
3. Borough English (Bruce E. Carpenter)
4. Re: Veterans day - November 11 (John R Carpenter (JRC))
5. Manor Survey (Bruce E. Carpenter)
6. wills (Bruce E. Carpenter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:35:22 EDT
From: GeneZub(a)aol.com
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] eldest/youngest
To: carpenter(a)rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <ce4.1f6cd072.344fd12a(a)aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bruce wrote:
<< << "and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of
being
named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his
father's
eldest son and heir." >> >>
<< I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor
records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the
longest
period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. >>
Not according to archivist Andrew Crookston at the Wiltshire and Swindon
Record Office, Trowbridge, England (soon to be the Wiltshire and Swindon
Archives, Chippenham). I explicitly raised this issue with him a few
months ago,
and he confirmed that extending the copyhold beyond the father's
lifetime--a
matter of inheritance under the old English law of primogeniture--was
typically
done by naming the eldest son as co-tenant.
In light of the legal (and cultural) significance of the eldest son--only
to
whom, incidentally, did a family crest devolve--the youngest son had little
standing among a family's male children. In seventeenth-century England,
family claims to land--whether by copyhold or freehold--were almost always
perpetuated through the eldest son, who was the "heir at law" of his
father's
real estate. A father could circumvent the law of primogeniture by making
a
will whose provisions diverged from it (though most men of modest means
left no
wills, and those who did typically had other purposes). Similarly, a
copyholding father could name someone other than his eldest son as
co-tenant, but
it would violate a principle deeply rooted in English common law and was
rarely done.
A copyhold was, by custom, a semipermanent lease from a manorial lord.
Having in practical terms many of the features of a freehold, a copyhold
was not
so tenuous as to require such strategies as making the youngest son
co-tenant
so as "to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of
time." A copyhold's continuity through many generations of the same
family was
virtually guaranteed by custom and the manorial court (on which tenants sat
as
judges). The perpetuation of a family's copyhold was easily accomplished
by
adding the next-generation eldest son's name when tenancy was renewed
(technically, surrendered and regranted). When a man died intestate and a
co-tenant was not named in manorial records, either the law of
primogeniture applied
(the copyhold was regranted to the eldest son), or, as was the custom on
some
manors, the copyhold was regranted to all the sons (and the representatives
of deceased ones). Under such circumstances, I can't imagine a copyhold's
being regranted to the youngest son alone, without the formal consent of
each
and all older brothers.
William2 is named along with his father in the record of their Westcourt
copyhold's inception, on 1 June 1608, when William1 was about 33 years old
(and
his namesake son was about 3). Why, at that age, would the father have
thought that William2 would be his last son? (The law of primogeniture
almost
certainly arose, in part, out of the inherent uncertainty as to [1] the sex
of
future children and who among them would survive ["a bird in the hand . .
."]
and [2] the longevity of the father. Of course it also prevented the
dilution of family wealth from one generation to the next.) Finally, given
the
naming traditions of the time, the son receiving his father's forename was
far
more likely to be the eldest than the youngest.
In that the Carpenters' copyhold was granted to an entirely different
family
a few months before William1, William2, and the latter's family emigrated,
it's quite possible that William2 was his father's _only_ son (by that
time,
at least).
Gene Z.
************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:35:22 EDT
From: GeneZub(a)aol.com
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] eldest/youngest
To: carpenter(a)rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <ce4.1f6cd072.344fd12a(a)aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bruce wrote:
<< << "and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of
being
named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his
father's
eldest son and heir." >> >>
<< I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor
records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the
longest
period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. >>
Not according to archivist Andrew Crookston at the Wiltshire and Swindon
Record Office, Trowbridge, England (soon to be the Wiltshire and Swindon
Archives, Chippenham). I explicitly raised this issue with him a few
months ago,
and he confirmed that extending the copyhold beyond the father's
lifetime--a
matter of inheritance under the old English law of primogeniture--was
typically
done by naming the eldest son as co-tenant.
In light of the legal (and cultural) significance of the eldest son--only
to
whom, incidentally, did a family crest devolve--the youngest son had little
standing among a family's male children. In seventeenth-century England,
family claims to land--whether by copyhold or freehold--were almost always
perpetuated through the eldest son, who was the "heir at law" of his
father's
real estate. A father could circumvent the law of primogeniture by making
a
will whose provisions diverged from it (though most men of modest means
left no
wills, and those who did typically had other purposes). Similarly, a
copyholding father could name someone other than his eldest son as
co-tenant, but
it would violate a principle deeply rooted in English common law and was
rarely done.
A copyhold was, by custom, a semipermanent lease from a manorial lord.
Having in practical terms many of the features of a freehold, a copyhold
was not
so tenuous as to require such strategies as making the youngest son
co-tenant
so as "to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of
time." A copyhold's continuity through many generations of the same
family was
virtually guaranteed by custom and the manorial court (on which tenants sat
as
judges). The perpetuation of a family's copyhold was easily accomplished
by
adding the next-generation eldest son's name when tenancy was renewed
(technically, surrendered and regranted). When a man died intestate and a
co-tenant was not named in manorial records, either the law of
primogeniture applied
(the copyhold was regranted to the eldest son), or, as was the custom on
some
manors, the copyhold was regranted to all the sons (and the representatives
of deceased ones). Under such circumstances, I can't imagine a copyhold's
being regranted to the youngest son alone, without the formal consent of
each
and all older brothers.
William2 is named along with his father in the record of their Westcourt
copyhold's inception, on 1 June 1608, when William1 was about 33 years old
(and
his namesake son was about 3). Why, at that age, would the father have
thought that William2 would be his last son? (The law of primogeniture
almost
certainly arose, in part, out of the inherent uncertainty as to [1] the sex
of
future children and who among them would survive ["a bird in the hand . .
."]
and [2] the longevity of the father. Of course it also prevented the
dilution of family wealth from one generation to the next.) Finally, given
the
naming traditions of the time, the son receiving his father's forename was
far
more likely to be the eldest than the youngest.
In that the Carpenters' copyhold was granted to an entirely different
family
a few months before William1, William2, and the latter's family emigrated,
it's quite possible that William2 was his father's _only_ son (by that
time,
at least).
Gene Z.
************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:22:36 +0900 (JST)
From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp(a)tezukayama-u.ac.jp>
Subject: [CARPENTER] Borough English
To: Carpenter-L(a)rootsweb.com
Message-ID:
<38907.125.194.2.197.1193185356.squirrel(a)webmail.wesleyan.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
The problem of eldest/youngest is complicated by the following:
?By the Elizabethan period a man could bequeath his copyhold land as he
chose unless limitations were named in the indentures covering specific
pieces of land, or there were particulars in the customs of the manors
forbidding it. On certain manors, the custom of ?Borough English?
prevailed. This required that the copyholder?s land must go to his
youngest rather than his eldest son as was the case in the common-law
usage. Mr. Copinger has estimated that as many as eighty manors in Suffolk
were governed by this custom (The English Yeoman, pp. 128-9).?
Borough English aside it may be that William Carpenter(1) was bound
neither by primogeniture nor any other system as Campbell states above.
Perhaps a careful look at the manor survey on the whole will reveal
something?
BC
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:56:55 -0700
From: "John R Carpenter \(JRC\)" <jrcrin001(a)cox.net>
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Veterans day - November 11
To: <carpenter(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <004801c815e9$89922a00$0200a8c0@JOHN>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Tim,
Good ops!
We are just getting a head start!
John R. Carpenter
La Mesa, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell(a)chattanooga.net>
To: <carpenter(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Veterans day
...>
If this week was Veteran's Day what is November 11th?
Tim Stowell
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:25:16 +0900 (JST)
From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp(a)tezukayama-u.ac.jp>
Subject: [CARPENTER] Manor Survey
To: Carpenter-L(a)rootsweb.com
Message-ID:
<39461.125.194.2.197.1193196316.squirrel(a)webmail.wesleyan.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
My reading of the 1621 Westcourt Manor Survey is that the youngest son is
most in line for land inheritance. For example on page eight Anthony
Wiseman becomes land holder due to his younger brother John's death,
clearly noted on the lease contract. On the next page John Carbor inherits
his father's land over his older brother Francis whose death was not
noted. In many other places the age disparity between father and son is
too great to suggest an eldest son. Correct me if I am wrong.
BC
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:54:40 +0900 (JST)
From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp(a)tezukayama-u.ac.jp>
Subject: [CARPENTER] wills
To: Carpenter-L(a)rootsweb.com
Message-ID:
<39001.125.194.2.197.1193187280.squirrel(a)webmail.wesleyan.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8
Now that the Wilts wills are beginning to be available online, perhaps
interested individuals would be interested in a division of labor to find
any Carpenter references in them. In other words one individual would be
in charge of one town?s wills for any Carpenter references. Obvious towns
would be Amesbury, Newton Tony, Marlborough, Little and Great Bedwyn,
Hungerford and Shalbourne. Each researcher could keep a list and check off
the names as the wills came online.
BC
------------------------------
To contact the CARPENTER list administrator, send an email to
CARPENTER-admin(a)rootsweb.com.
To post a message to the CARPENTER mailing list, send an email to
CARPENTER(a)rootsweb.com.
__________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
CARPENTER-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body
of the
email with no additional text.
End of CARPENTER Digest, Vol 2, Issue 198
*****************************************
************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com