Sorry that this is out of period, but I suspect there may be more people on
this group who know about admissions to tenancies than on soc.gen.brit.
I'd appreciate any comments on what the below is likely to mean. Is each
person being admitted to two tenements once or one tenement twice?
August 1627 Admission of Thomas X to 1 tenement, now in the lord's hand on
on the death of William X, rent 6 2s p.a.
August 1633 Admission of Thomas X to 1 tenement, formerly William X's, rent
6s 2d
October 1636 Admission of William Y to 1 tenement, vacant on the death of
Thomas X, rent 6s 2d
September 1669 Admission of William Y to 1 tenement, rent 6s 2d
I'm working from an index here - haven't yet seen the originals (well, not
since 5 years ago - when I didn't note down the details) so can't provide
more info. X and Y are two different surnames.
Chris
Admissions
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Admissions
In message of 21 Nov, "Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
Let's give this a thrash as noone else has come forth.
I'm guessing but I am not sure that these are tenancies.
I wonder if these rents were not 6s 8d, a third of a pound, that is half
a mark. 6s 2d sounds rather odd.
These sound like entries in a manor roll where the lord of the manor, or
his steward, decides what to do with properties ("tenements") where the
previous copyhold owner had died. They could be either straight
tenancies or copyholdings, though I am not sure that copyholders paid
rent. But even tenants in chief had some service to pay the sovereign,
usually substituted by cash.
The copy of the decision in the manor roll was the only documentation
about who held or rented what. There would have been no title deeds or
even leases. Sometime in the 1920s copyholding as a form of landholding
was abolished and, I think, the then occupiers had freehold title.
In order to decide how many properties were involved, I think you
really must get hold of the original document, or a photocopy thereof.
It further sounds that, as abstracters do, significant details were
omitted.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Let's give this a thrash as noone else has come forth.
Sorry that this is out of period, but I suspect there may be more
people on this group who know about admissions to tenancies than on
soc.gen.brit.
I'm guessing but I am not sure that these are tenancies.
I'd appreciate any comments on what the below is likely to mean. Is
each person being admitted to two tenements once or one tenement
twice?
August 1627 Admission of Thomas X to 1 tenement, now in the lord's
hand on on the death of William X, rent 6 2s p.a.
August 1633 Admission of Thomas X to 1 tenement, formerly William
X's, rent 6s 2d
October 1636 Admission of William Y to 1 tenement, vacant on the
death of Thomas X, rent 6s 2d
September 1669 Admission of William Y to 1 tenement, rent 6s 2d
I wonder if these rents were not 6s 8d, a third of a pound, that is half
a mark. 6s 2d sounds rather odd.
These sound like entries in a manor roll where the lord of the manor, or
his steward, decides what to do with properties ("tenements") where the
previous copyhold owner had died. They could be either straight
tenancies or copyholdings, though I am not sure that copyholders paid
rent. But even tenants in chief had some service to pay the sovereign,
usually substituted by cash.
The copy of the decision in the manor roll was the only documentation
about who held or rented what. There would have been no title deeds or
even leases. Sometime in the 1920s copyholding as a form of landholding
was abolished and, I think, the then occupiers had freehold title.
In order to decide how many properties were involved, I think you
really must get hold of the original document, or a photocopy thereof.
It further sounds that, as abstracters do, significant details were
omitted.
I'm working from an index here - haven't yet seen the originals
(well, not since 5 years ago - when I didn't note down the details)
so can't provide more info. X and Y are two different surnames.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Admissions
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Thanks, Tim. I suspect that a reason for no-one else giving it a go is that
the information supplied is too limited to form any useful conclusions.
You may well be right, though rents can be rather odd sums. I certainly
wouldn't guaranteee the accuracy - I have found at least one serious error
in this batch of papers when comparing the abstract to the original (serious
enough to have me chasing up entirely the wrong tree for a year!); and there
is another detail about a name in this particular abstract that doesn't
tally with anything else I've got.
This is in Cumberland where 'tenant right' was very strong and tenements
were almost more like freehold than copyhold. However, my limited expertise
is based on the customs of the manor next door, not on this one. These
entries are shown in the catalogue as separate documents.
The 'Cumbria Federations ofWomen's Institutes' have published a rather
charming and idiosyncratic book called 'The Cumbria Village Book' - in which
this location is described as 'a tiny hamlet, which has as its main
characteristic a sense of continuity, its farms remaining in the same
families'.
I did ask the record office to confirm the details, which they did, advising
that any further research was pointless! Short of paying rather a lot for
photo reproductionss or going to the record office itself (which involves
two days of train journeys and an overnight stay!), I'm a touch stuck. I'll
check in the Spring but not before then.
Thank you, Tim. I've managed to put together a provisional family tree that
would explain the facts available, and neatly skirts around the question as
to whether these documents refer to one tenement, two, or moieties in one;
but it's hardly satisfying! In the end, I suspect I will need to track the
whole hamlet and compare 1651 against 1851. Thank heaven for isolated rural
areas where farm units remain fairly constant!
Chris
Let's give this a thrash as noone else has come forth.
Thanks, Tim. I suspect that a reason for no-one else giving it a go is that
the information supplied is too limited to form any useful conclusions.
I wonder if these rents were not 6s 8d, a third of a pound, that is half
a mark. 6s 2d sounds rather odd.
You may well be right, though rents can be rather odd sums. I certainly
wouldn't guaranteee the accuracy - I have found at least one serious error
in this batch of papers when comparing the abstract to the original (serious
enough to have me chasing up entirely the wrong tree for a year!); and there
is another detail about a name in this particular abstract that doesn't
tally with anything else I've got.
These sound like entries in a manor roll where the lord of the manor, or
his steward, decides what to do with properties ("tenements") where the
previous copyhold owner had died.
This is in Cumberland where 'tenant right' was very strong and tenements
were almost more like freehold than copyhold. However, my limited expertise
is based on the customs of the manor next door, not on this one. These
entries are shown in the catalogue as separate documents.
The 'Cumbria Federations ofWomen's Institutes' have published a rather
charming and idiosyncratic book called 'The Cumbria Village Book' - in which
this location is described as 'a tiny hamlet, which has as its main
characteristic a sense of continuity, its farms remaining in the same
families'.
In order to decide how many properties were involved, I think you
really must get hold of the original document, or a photocopy thereof.
It further sounds that, as abstracters do, significant details were
omitted.
I did ask the record office to confirm the details, which they did, advising
that any further research was pointless! Short of paying rather a lot for
photo reproductionss or going to the record office itself (which involves
two days of train journeys and an overnight stay!), I'm a touch stuck. I'll
check in the Spring but not before then.
Thank you, Tim. I've managed to put together a provisional family tree that
would explain the facts available, and neatly skirts around the question as
to whether these documents refer to one tenement, two, or moieties in one;
but it's hardly satisfying! In the end, I suspect I will need to track the
whole hamlet and compare 1651 against 1851. Thank heaven for isolated rural
areas where farm units remain fairly constant!
Chris