Exact wording of Rogers children record

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:15:02

Hi Everyone:

Here is the exact wording of the administration of the three deceased
Rogers children. This is found in Northumberland County Order Book (part One)
1699-1713, page 249, date of record, the 20th day of May Anno Dom. 1703. I did
not make any corrections to spelling, abbreviations, etc. This is exactly how
it is recorded.

"Upon the Moc'on of Christ'r Neale and Jane his wife a Com'c'on of Adm'c'on
is granted them on the Estate of Richard, John and Hannah Rogers the said Janes
Children giving Caution for their Due administrac'on on the said Dec'eds
Estate According to Law."

This record clearly states that the children are deceased and that they
are the said Jane's children. This is not a guardianship, it is an
administration of an estate, meaning "dead, passed on, no longer with us"

From the various records in this order book in reference to the estate
of Richard Rogers, husband of Jane Presley, it appears that Richard, along with
his father and his siblings was fairly well to do. Among these records were
orders in reference to money that the late Richard Rogers owed and money that
was owed to him. Their currency was in pounds of tobacco.

I have proved my case. I do not have to prove anything else. You
wanted documentation, you have. Now prove me wrong if you can.

Joan Burdyck



**************************************
Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 15 jul 2007 23:15:26

Joan wrote:

Here is the exact wording of the administration of the three deceased
Rogers children. This is found in Northumberland County Order Book (part
One)
1699-1713, page 249, date of record, the 20th day of May Anno Dom. 1703.
I did
not make any corrections to spelling, abbreviations, etc. This is exactly
how
it is recorded.

"Upon the Moc'on of Christ'r Neale and Jane his wife a Com'c'on of
Adm'c'on
is granted them on the Estate of Richard, John and Hannah Rogers the said
Janes
Children giving Caution for their Due administrac'on on the said Dec'eds
Estate According to Law."



The key is end 's' at the end of 'Dec'eds' in the Order Book. If that 's' is
a correct transcription, then they had clearly all died. If the word is only
'Dec'ed' then the reference is likely to be to Richard Rogers.

I'm assuming that Joan has transcribed the Order Book correctly - so the
grant of administration looks likely to have been triggered by the death of
the last living child.


Chris

pj.evans

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av pj.evans » 16 jul 2007 02:21:17

On Jul 15, 3:15 pm, "Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
Joan wrote:
Here is the exact wording of the administration of the three deceased
Rogers children. This is found in Northumberland County Order Book (part
One)
1699-1713, page 249, date of record, the 20th day of May Anno Dom. 1703.
I did
not make any corrections to spelling, abbreviations, etc. This is exactly
how
it is recorded.

"Upon the Moc'on of Christ'r Neale and Jane his wife a Com'c'on of
Adm'c'on
is granted them on the Estate of Richard, John and Hannah Rogers the said
Janes
Children giving Caution for their Due administrac'on on the said Dec'eds
Estate According to Law."

The key is end 's' at the end of 'Dec'eds' in the Order Book. If that 's' is
a correct transcription, then they had clearly all died. If the word is only
'Dec'ed' then the reference is likely to be to Richard Rogers.

I'm assuming that Joan has transcribed the Order Book correctly - so the
grant of administration looks likely to have been triggered by the death of
the last living child.

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'd say 'the last living *minor* child'. Apparently some of the older
children survived long enough to produce children.
I'd think that the death of the last living minor child would require
some kind of adjustment in the administration, and possible there was
stuff still being administered for the estate that isn't mentioned in
this entry. (This, incidentally, is one reason to look for the rest of
the papers. What's hiding in those other documents?)

(I understand Hannah was born in the mid-1680s, so either she died
some years before 1703, or she never married, even though she was in
the range of 15 to 20 years old.)

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»