Karon Bosze wrote:
The p. 15 reference seems to be a typo in that it doesn't refer
to
Nicholas and Elizabeth. That particular entry is on p. 18 of the
Sparacio book. There are a couple interesting entries on p. 15 though.
It is beginning to look like Margaret's footnotes and text got mixed up in
editing as the citation for the ear mark entry is "pp. 36-37" rather than
p. 15.
The first:
"The ear mark of NICHOLAS CATLETT Sonne of NICHOLAS CATLETT his Cattel
being a Cow Calf having a cropp and a hole in each eare and an under
keele in the right all the female increase be to him andand his heirs."
Nicholas has a son named Nicholas. And in 1672 (1 Jul if "primo" means
one (1)), Nicholas with the CATTLE is old enough to register the mark
he's using on his cow "calf". Was he 14 or older?
Don't know what "old enough" was at this time although I would think it
might be 16. Wasn't when males began to be entered on the tithable lists?
The other interesting entry on p. 15 is the beginning of the
pre-nuptial
agreement between AMORY BUTLER and the recently widowed Mrs. Elizabeth
CATLETT (Elizabeth Underwood Taylor Slaughter Catlett). I never had
Latin as a language. Does "tertio" translate to a number, such as
"3"?
I didn't have Latin either, but I think it means "4". And I may be wrong.
dated 28 Mar 1668 and recorded 12 "Die Martii 1667".
Don't know why
there's a discrepancy in dates. I'm assuming that the latter date
translates to 12 Mar 1667/8.
Would "Die" mean twelve or ten? Or does that make much difference? <G>
Or Nicholas (the elder) was married to Elizabeth (the daughter of
Joanna
MATHEWS) and Nicholas (the sonne of Nicholas) was married to Susanna or
Susannah. If the elder Nicholas was the eldest son of John and born
before John emgigrated to Virginia, his birthdate would have been before
1650 and more likely to have been born about 1645. He'd certainly have
been old enough to have had a son by 1672. Given this scenario, would
the younger Nicholas have been old enough to have registered his calf's
earmark though by 1672?
Dunno.
If this Nicholas (the older one) is the one noted as a headright for John
Catlett in 1650, we can assume that he would be at least 22 in 1672 and
probably not older than about 32. Thus a younger Nicholas in 1672 would
(to my mind) be not older than about ten. But he _could_ be as old as 15
_IF_ the older Nicholas were older and/or married earlier than we think.
Then as you say, the question would be what is the "of age" point back then?
Then again, the elder Nicholas may not have been a son of John. The
name Nicholas does appear as a name in the family in England, according
to Avant. For instance, see Nicholas, son of Nicholas CATLETT b. ca.
1596 of Teynham and Norton, Kent, England and Sarah -----.
Margaret also noted a Nicholas in England (probably the same as Avant's).
----------
Lee Hoffman/KY
E-mail: lhoffman(a)acm.org
My website: <
http://www.users.mis.net/~lhoffman>
--------------
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)