Leo's great site does not give us a birthyear range for this person.
I have now located a document which makes it clear that he was in his
majority by at least 1557. Since his father is known to have been b 1516, this
greatly limits James' own possible birthrange.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
BADGER HALL COLLECTION
Catalogue Ref. 513
Creator(s): Hawkins Browne family of Badger Hall, Badger, Shropshire
Cheney family of Badger Hall, Badger, Shropshire
Cure family of Badger Hall, Badger, Shropshire
DEEDS
Hanbury, Staffordshire
Astle's Land, Fauld, Hanbury
FILE - FINE - ref. 513/2/18/7/2 - date: 1557
[from Scope and Content] Richard Lathbury v James Blount, Lord Mountjoy re a
cottage, meadow and pasture with Fauld Moor.
FILE - BARGAIN AND SALE - ref. 513/2/18/7/4 - date: 20 Feb 1557/8
[from Scope and Content] James Blount, Lord Mountjoy sells to John Boylston
of Fauld a messuage, Lords Ley in the occupation of John Boylston, Thomas
Deubank and William Swenson and another messuage in the occupation of Thomas
Deubank.
James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
Dear Will,
What do you mean by _greatly limits_?
Ok the father was born in 1516 married circa August 1530 and James's eldest
son was born circa October 1561.
We don't know when James was married, but if born in 1531 he would have been
about 30 when the first son was born (a bit old for those days). If he was
as precocious as he father and about 14/15 when married and 16 when a son
was born we are looking at 1545. This gives a time frame of 1531 to 1545.
How old _in those days_ was a person to attain majority, that is the only
way to reduce this time frame, but by how much (or how little)?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:10 AM
Subject: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
What do you mean by _greatly limits_?
Ok the father was born in 1516 married circa August 1530 and James's eldest
son was born circa October 1561.
We don't know when James was married, but if born in 1531 he would have been
about 30 when the first son was born (a bit old for those days). If he was
as precocious as he father and about 14/15 when married and 16 when a son
was born we are looking at 1545. This gives a time frame of 1531 to 1545.
How old _in those days_ was a person to attain majority, that is the only
way to reduce this time frame, but by how much (or how little)?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:10 AM
Subject: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
Leo's great site does not give us a birthyear range for this person.
I have now located a document which makes it clear that he was in his
majority by at least 1557. Since his father is known to have been b 1516,
this
greatly limits James' own possible birthrange.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
BADGER HALL COLLECTION
Catalogue Ref. 513
Creator(s): Hawkins Browne family of Badger Hall, Badger, Shropshire
Cheney family of Badger Hall, Badger, Shropshire
Cure family of Badger Hall, Badger, Shropshire
DEEDS
Hanbury, Staffordshire
Astle's Land, Fauld, Hanbury
FILE - FINE - ref. 513/2/18/7/2 - date: 1557
[from Scope and Content] Richard Lathbury v James Blount, Lord Mountjoy re
a
cottage, meadow and pasture with Fauld Moor.
FILE - BARGAIN AND SALE - ref. 513/2/18/7/4 - date: 20 Feb 1557/8
[from Scope and Content] James Blount, Lord Mountjoy sells to John
Boylston
of Fauld a messuage, Lords Ley in the occupation of John Boylston, Thomas
Deubank and William Swenson and another messuage in the occupation of
Thomas
Deubank.
-
Gjest
Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:21:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< If he was
as precocious as he father and about 14/15 when married and 16 when a son
was born we are looking at 1545. This gives a time frame of 1531 to 1545. >>
I'm just rather suspicious of a person being sued and selling land at 13
years of age with no mention of any sort of ward or guardianship going on.
So my estimate of his birthrange would then be 1530/36 allowing him to be
21 at the point where he is doing these transactions in 1557.
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< If he was
as precocious as he father and about 14/15 when married and 16 when a son
was born we are looking at 1545. This gives a time frame of 1531 to 1545. >>
I'm just rather suspicious of a person being sued and selling land at 13
years of age with no mention of any sort of ward or guardianship going on.
So my estimate of his birthrange would then be 1530/36 allowing him to be
21 at the point where he is doing these transactions in 1557.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
Dear Will,
Can I shrink the period a little further? If his 14 year old father married
in August 1530, I doubt the bride was pregnant then, and we should/could
assume a first child being born about after May 1531. Then he could be 26 in
1557. However, a range of 1531 to 1536 still applies.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
Can I shrink the period a little further? If his 14 year old father married
in August 1530, I doubt the bride was pregnant then, and we should/could
assume a first child being born about after May 1531. Then he could be 26 in
1557. However, a range of 1531 to 1536 still applies.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:21:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
If he was
as precocious as he father and about 14/15 when married and 16 when a son
was born we are looking at 1545. This gives a time frame of 1531 to 1545.
I'm just rather suspicious of a person being sued and selling land at 13
years of age with no mention of any sort of ward or guardianship going on.
So my estimate of his birthrange would then be 1530/36 allowing him to
be
21 at the point where he is doing these transactions in 1557.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
Is there any reason for not accepting CP's statement that he was aged 18 in
1551?
Adrian
In a message dated 06/08/2005 00:42:37 GMT Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Dear Will,
Can I shrink the period a little further? If his 14 year old father married
in August 1530, I doubt the bride was pregnant then, and we should/could
assume a first child being born about after May 1531. Then he could be 26 in
1557. However, a range of 1531 to 1536 still applies.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
1551?
Adrian
In a message dated 06/08/2005 00:42:37 GMT Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Dear Will,
Can I shrink the period a little further? If his 14 year old father married
in August 1530, I doubt the bride was pregnant then, and we should/could
assume a first child being born about after May 1531. Then he could be 26 in
1557. However, a range of 1531 to 1536 still applies.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:21:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
If he was
as precocious as he father and about 14/15 when married and 16 when a son
was born we are looking at 1545. This gives a time frame of 1531 to 1545.
I'm just rather suspicious of a person being sued and selling land at 13
years of age with no mention of any sort of ward or guardianship going on.
So my estimate of his birthrange would then be 1530/36 allowing him to
be
21 at the point where he is doing these transactions in 1557.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: James Blount, Lord Mountjoy d 1581
In a message dated 8/6/2005 3:10:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
Perhaps that it's based on nothing?
Otherwise you could quote it with the source on which it's based I suppose.
Thanks
Will Johnson
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
Is there any reason for not accepting CP's statement that he was aged 18 in
1551?
Adrian
Perhaps that it's based on nothing?
Otherwise you could quote it with the source on which it's based I suppose.
Thanks
Will Johnson