Hi Lee --
Lee Hoffman/KY wrote:
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.
A-yup.
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?
I think so. But, not sure.
I didn't have Latin either, but I think it means "4".
And I may be wrong.
I've misplaced my "A to Zax" book. <sigh> Had it out last night
checking some of the legal terms and now it's MIA. <G>
>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>
"Die" I take to mean "day".
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?
21 generally, but with exceptions. I've seen the question asked on the
Lib of VA list. I believe they have an archives of the posts. Don't
have the URL handy though.
Margaret also noted a Nicholas in England (probably the same as
Avant's).
Yep.
-- Karon
*********************************************************************
* mailto:boszek@hitter.net *
* Web Page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/karon_bosze/ *
* Instant Messenger (AIM): Norak75 *
*********************************************************************