Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Resend:- Some Queries

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 18:54:29

On 14 Jul., 16:48, "Saluzzo" <saluz...@email.it> wrote:
Concernig the Sardimpex site, It seem's that the owner of the site got
some major legal problems in Italy and it was forced to avoid his site
to remain public. The owner, a certain mr. Davide Shamà, as been sued by
many important genalogical italian publisher, first of all by the
publisher of the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana". Due of this legal
pursue, it is emerged that this guy seem's to be completely uknown to
the italian and not italian world of scholars, university etc. and it is
used to copy the main part of his work from other sources (like the
cited "Annuario etc.).

At the moment, considering this legal situation, I'm afraid all this
"password-circus" seems very much a fake. Probably the owner has really
been sued and forced not to maintain public the site and is trying to
"hide" this fact under the alleged "password restriction"...
Saluzzo

Same tired old troll, same tired old rubbish - in fact, most of this
is a copied verbatim from an earlier entry amongst the troll's last
schizophrenic series of posts (11 May 2007), see here:

http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... cc7598b548

MAR

jluc soler

Re: Resend:- Some Queries

Legg inn av jluc soler » 14 jul 2007 19:58:14

the only problem is that for provencal families , the sardimpex site is
ESSENTIAL and even writing to Mr davide SHAMA i can t obtain an acces

JL
<mjcar@btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1184435669.258905.301160@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 14 Jul., 16:48, "Saluzzo" <saluz...@email.it> wrote:
Concernig the Sardimpex site, It seem's that the owner of the site got
some major legal problems in Italy and it was forced to avoid his site
to remain public. The owner, a certain mr. Davide Shamà, as been sued by
many important genalogical italian publisher, first of all by the
publisher of the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana". Due of this legal
pursue, it is emerged that this guy seem's to be completely uknown to
the italian and not italian world of scholars, university etc. and it is
used to copy the main part of his work from other sources (like the
cited "Annuario etc.).

At the moment, considering this legal situation, I'm afraid all this
"password-circus" seems very much a fake. Probably the owner has really
been sued and forced not to maintain public the site and is trying to
"hide" this fact under the alleged "password restriction"...
Saluzzo

Same tired old troll, same tired old rubbish - in fact, most of this
is a copied verbatim from an earlier entry amongst the troll's last
schizophrenic series of posts (11 May 2007), see here:

http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... cc7598b548

MAR

Gjest

Re: Jane (Presley) Rogers not a 12-yr old mother

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 22:17:02

Hi Jim:

Thank you for posting the information that you have. My documentation
will follow. I will be citing Northumberland County record and order books and
pages.

Joan Burdyck




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

Gjest

Re: Jane (Presley) Rogers not a 12-yr old mother

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 22:18:02

Hi Vickie:

Thank you. I have the complete documentation available and I will be
posting it soon. Jane Presley Rogers Neale did give birth to her first child at
the age of 12.

Joan Burdyck



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 22:30:04

As has been posted on the prior thread on this same topic, Alice Algood
states that the *John* you refer to was born "c 1693".

I assume she was basing that date off something, so now we need to see
*what*. If her logic is flawless then the John in the admin could not be the same
person. Also I'd like to point out that the item does not state that these
children are *dead*.

That's why we need to be very careful to quote *exactly* what the
information says and not add things it does not.

*If* there were two John's then that would show the possibility that Richard
was indeed married previously.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Early counts of Castile, Garcia III? (resent - first tim

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 22:35:03

In a message dated 7/14/2007 1:28:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
willemnabuurs@xs4all.nl writes:


Abel Franco de Garcia III (1036), ruled Castile for less than a year; died 7
months into his reign; cause of death unkown. Little else is known about
this monarch; however immediately following the death of Garcia III his
family left Castile for what is today known as Mexico.>>>
I've removed it, with a tag "silly legend"
Will Johnson





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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 23:15:05

Hi Everyone:
In a message dated 7/14/2007 4:24:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

As has been posted on the prior thread on this same topic, Alice Algood
states that the *John* you refer to was born "c 1693".

I gave you the correct birth date of John Rogers, son of Richard Rogers
as it appears in the St. Stephen''s Parish Birth and Death Register. There is
no other birth record for a John Rogers in that register!!!!!! What don't
you see?

John Rogers, son of Richard, born December 18, 1676

I assume she was basing that date off something, so now we need to see
*what*. If her logic is flawless then the John in the admin could not be the same
person. Also I'd like to point out that the item does not state that these
children are *dead*.

Excuse me! What don't you understand about deceased? The record shows
that the three children were died. They were entitled to a portion of their
father's estate, they passed away after his death, so their portions had to be
given to someone. If Jane wasn't their mother, she would not have been
entitled to their portions, and no amount petitioning the court would have gotten
the estates for her.

That's why we need to be very careful to quote *exactly* what the
information says and not add things it does not.

Who added anything? You are not talking to a child. I am probably
older than you. I know to quote exactly what the information says. I paid enough
for my daughter's law school education to be well aware of that. And yes,
she is an attorney before you make a comment about that and she did take the Bar
exam 4 months after her graduation from law school and she passed it on the
first try with such a high grade that in addition being admitted to the bar in
this state, she was automatically admitted to the bar in Washington, D.C.

*If* there were two John's then that would show the possibility that Richard
was indeed married previously.

There are no records for another child by the name of John belonging to
Richard Rogers anywhere in the Northumberland County records.

Richard Rogers was born after 1654, as on July 20, 1654, his father in a
deed of gift gave a calf to each of his children and they are listed as
Katherine, Elizabeth and John. They were listed in that order. This was recorded
the same date by Thomas Wilsford, clerk of the Court, who was a witness to the
deed. William, Richard and Ellen Rogers had not been born. It has been
traditionally believed that William was the next child born, then Richard and
finally Ellen. So, for example if this is correct, then say Richard was born
about 1657 or so, which would have made his age about 19 when John was born.

Will, you need to admit that you made a mistake and apologize to me for
all of the comments that you have made about me and my research. I have
presented all of the documentation to suppose my case. You are looking for
excuses. I did my part, I provided the documentation that you wanted, now it's up to
you to do your part.

Joan Burdyck






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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 23:20:04

In a message dated 7/14/2007 2:11:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Will, you need to admit that you made a mistake and apologize to me for all
of the comments that you have made about me and my research. I have
presented all of the documentation to suppose my case. You are looking for
excuses.>>
Replace the above with "didn't present all"
You're ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your theory.
It's an old trick but well known.





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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2007 23:21:02

In a message dated 7/14/2007 2:11:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Excuse me! What don't you understand about deceased? The record shows that
the three children were died. They were entitled to a portion of their
father's estate, they passed away after his death, so their portions had to be
given to someone. If Jane wasn't their mother, she would not have been
entitled to their portions, and no amount petitioning the court would have gotten
the estates for her.>>
This is flatly incorrect. A step-mother, in the absence of any other
relative can certainly get approval of the court to admin an estate. You should
know this.

ANYone can petition a court to admin an estate. The court isn't likely to
look with favor on a complete stranger, but estates have been admin'd by any
number of relations, including step.

Will



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

Vickie Elam White

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 14 jul 2007 23:37:09

Joan Burdyck wrote

<snip>

Now, for the proof that all of the Rogers children were Jane's. On May
20,
1703, Jane Presley Rogers Neale and her husband, Christopher Neale were
granted
administration of the estates of her three deceased children, Richard,
John
and Hannah Rogers, (Northumberland County, VA Order Book 1699-1713, page
249).
The son, William appears to have died at an earlier age as there is no
additional mention of him. There were three additional children of
Richard and Jane
Rogers: Elizabeth, Jane and Ellen, (Northumberland County Record Book
1718-1726, pages 234-236.)

NOTE: John Rogers was born on December 18, 1676, and died between his
father's death and May 20, 1703, making Jane Presley 12 years old when she
gave birth
to John.

Also, this information is also available in "The Farish family of Virginia
and Its Forebears," by John Frederick Dorman, published in 1967, The
Rogers
family information starts on page 53, and the reference pages on the
Rogers family
start on page 135.


<snip>

I'm sorry, but that does not prove that Jane was the mother John b. 1676 and
William b. 1679. The 1703 action shows that the children concerned were
minors -- i.e. born after 1682. Therefore, these two boys were not the ones
involved. They probably *were* sons of Jane's husband Richard Rogers (I
believe he was the only one by that name in that parish, but I could be
wrong), but not by her.



Vickie Elam White

Vickie Elam White

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 14 jul 2007 23:40:47

Joan Burdyck wrote

Excuse me! What don't you understand about deceased? The record shows
that the three children were died. They were entitled to a portion of
their
father's estate, they passed away after his death, so their portions had to
be
given to someone. If Jane wasn't their mother, she would not have been
entitled to their portions, and no amount petitioning the court would have
gotten
the estates for her.

Jane and Christopher Neale were simply being named administrators of the
children's estate, not getting a portion of it. Very different animal
altogether. In fact, all the 1703 action proves is that the children were
still minors -- i.e. born after 1682. It says nothing about Jane and
Christopher's relationship to them, anyone could have been named
administrators.


Vickie Elam White

Vickie Elam White

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 15 jul 2007 01:27:34

Joan,

I think you have a problem here. The article in Virginia Genealogies of
Families, Vol. 4 makes no mention of the 3 children being deceased. I don't
know if the author copied it incorrectly or your source did so. But, since
there is a discrepancy, you need to go back and check that 1703 record
again.


Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: <Joemaryjoa@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>; <WJhonson@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA


Hi Everyone:

Well, I now present proof that girls were married in Northumberland
County, Virginia at extremely early ages. I did say that I had most of my
research in storage and my husband did pull it all out so that I could
provide proof
of my statement that there were cases where girls did marry in
Northumberland
County at extremely early ages. We consider it disgusting, but that was
the
culture in Northumberland County at that time. You must not assume that
because
one part of the colonies had a certain type of culture and values that all
of
the colonies were the same. Northumberland and Lancaster Counties were
isolated areas. There were many deaths and they ran out of people to
marry, that
is the simple fact of it. Today, we would consider it to be child sexual
abuse. When I first came across mention of girls marrying at extremely
young ages,
I thought that it was a mistake, but found that it wasn't. Mr. Preston
Haynie of the Northumberland County Historical Society told me that there
was some
type of law/ruling that a girl could marry young and at the age of 12, she
could decide if she still wanted to remain married to her husband. I do
not have
documentation of this statement by Mr. Haynie, but that was what I was
told.

First, I will start with Jane Presley, first wife of Richard Rogers and
then
wife, of Christopher Neale.

Jane Presley, daughter of Peter was born on June 29, 1664, (St. Stephen's
Parish Birth and Death Register, page 136).

Jane Presley married Richard Rogers, (Northumberland County, VA Record
Book
22, page 267a-269).

The Rogers children births from the St. Stephen's Parish Birth and Death
Register, page 79: (Not all of the births of the 7 children of Richard
Rogers and
Jane Presley were recorded)

John Rogers, son of Richard, born December 18, 1676
William Rogers, son of Richard, born February 12, 1679
Jane Rogers, daughter of Richard, born April 12, 1686.

Richard Rogers died before August 18, 1697, as on that date Jane Rogers
and
Thomas Banks (second husband of Elizabeth, sister of Richard) presented
his
will to the court (Northumberland County, VA Order Book 1678-1698, page
783).

Jane Presley Rogers married second by February 19, 1697/98, Christopher
Neale, (Northumberland County, VA Order Book 1678-1698, page 814).


Now, for the proof that all of the Rogers children were Jane's. On May
20,
1703, Jane Presley Rogers Neale and her husband, Christopher Neale were
granted
administration of the estates of her three deceased children, Richard,
John
and Hannah Rogers, (Northumberland County, VA Order Book 1699-1713, page
249).
The son, William appears to have died at an earlier age as there is no
additional mention of him. There were three additional children of
Richard and Jane
Rogers: Elizabeth, Jane and Ellen, (Northumberland County Record Book
1718-1726, pages 234-236.)

NOTE: John Rogers was born on December 18, 1676, and died between his
father's death and May 20, 1703, making Jane Presley 12 years old when she
gave birth
to John.

Also, this information is also available in "The Farish family of Virginia
and Its Forebears," by John Frederick Dorman, published in 1967, The
Rogers
family information starts on page 53, and the reference pages on the
Rogers family
start on page 135.

Now, additional proof of early age marriages in Northumberland County, VA.

Jean Parker, daughter to Tolson and Jean was born February 20, 1777, (St.
Stephen's Parish Birth and Death Register, page 139). Jean appears to be
the
youngest child.

On June 10, 1788, a marriage license Bond was recorded in the
Northumberland
County, VA courthouse as follows: Spencer Mottrom Pickren and Jean Parker,
10
June 1788, consent of Toulson Parker, father of Jean. Richard S. Corbell,
security. (I have seen this marriage bond in the courthouse and it also
appears
in "The Marriage License Bonds of Northumberland County, Virginia from
1783 to
1850," listed and indexed by Stratton Nottingham, Genealogical Publishing
Company, Inc. Baltimore, 1976, page 81). Jean was only 11 years old at
the time
of her marriage and according to family tradition, she was pregnant at the
time with Jane, my great-great-great grandmother.

Then Toulson Parker's will, written February 9, 1795, proved November 14,
1796, (Northumberland County, VA Record Book #15, 1794-1799, page 331,
mentions
all of his living children, which I will not list, in what appears to be
the
order of their birth), and following the list of children, his will
states:

Grand daughter, Jane P. Pickren-fifteen pounds specie when she arrives to
the
age of eighteen years.
To Spencer M. Pickren-one shilling sterling.

Well, now I think that I have made my case. Is this adequate
documentation for you Will? I think that you owe me an apology, Will!!!
You need to
stop being so rude. If I say that I have information and will pull it out,
I mean
what I say, you can take me at my word.

Joan Burdyck






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

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 02:50:06

Hi Everyone:
In a message dated 7/14/2007 6:37:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

I'm sorry, but that does not prove that Jane was the mother John b. 1676
and
William b. 1679. The 1703 action shows that the children concerned were
minors -- i.e. born after 1682. Therefore, these two boys were not the ones
involved. They probably *were* sons of Jane's husband Richard Rogers (I
believe he was the only one by that name in that parish, but I could be
wrong), but not by her.

And it doesn't prove that she isn't their mother. It does not state

that her three deceased children would have been minors in 1703 if they had lived
.. Jane and Christopher were petitioning to administer the estates of the her
three children, the record states that they were her three children. They
could have asked for the administration no matter what age they were. So, please
explain if you would your reasoning for stating that the three deceased
children were minors. If these children were not Jane's, a sibling of Richard's
would surely have applied for administration of their estates. For that matter,
Jane could have applied for the administration of her father's estate or her
brother, Peter's estate and they surely weren't minors when they passed away.

Also, remember that Richard would have probably been about 19 years old
(see information that I posted earlier), when John was born. All because
Jane's age at the birth of son John does not fit the norm, does not mean that it
is not correct. Don't just assume because Jane was 12 years old, there had to
have been an earlier wife. There is absolutely nothing in any Northumberland
County, VA record book, order book, deed or will that mentions an earlier
wife of Richard. Nothing. There is nothing that states Jane is the stepmother
to any of the children of Richard Rogers. Do you have anything to prove that
Jane was not their mother or are you going on the assumption that because she
was 12 when John was born, she couldn't have been his mother?

I have mentioned before that Northumberland was a very unique area. You
cannot assume what was proper and correct for one part of the colonies was
correct in every colony and in every county of each colony. You have to get
into all of the records of that particular area as I have for the last 40 years.
Believe me, if you would read some of the records that I, along with several
people interested in Northumberland County history and genealogy have read,
then you would realize that some of the people there were a very lusty group.
There are many records that have not been abstracted or available by loan on
microfilm. Many of the records are not indexed, you have to go through each
page.

My parent's roots in Northumberland run all the way back to 1650, so I
have extra ordinary interest in that area. Many of my ancestors, including my
grandparents are buried there and I spend years of my life there. I would
never assume to tell someone else how things were done in any other part of the
colonies. So, you can understand that I would want the information for this
area to be recorded correctly on any website, newsgroup, etc. I have stated
what the records state and the documentation for these records. Because someone
does not believe what the records show, that does not make the record
incorrect. So, if you believe that Jane was not the mother of all of Richard's
children, please show us a record, etc., I would really like to see it.

Today, as years ago, Northumberland is mainly a farming and fishing
county. There is only one traffic light in Northumberland and that was installed
about two years ago. Before that it had been a blinking light for about 10
years and of course before that no light at all. This light is not even in
Heathsville, the county seat. There is one high school, one middle school and I
am not sure on the number of elementary schools, but I believe there is only
one elementary school also. This area is not like any area that you are
probably familiar with. It was different then and it is different now.

Joan Burdyck




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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 02:51:02

Vickie what I was mulling over in my head was... could this be a record of
her administration not because they were *dead* but rather because they were
heirs and minors? That is, a guardianship ?

That seems to be where you're going.
I wonder if other records from that same work that could be consulted to see
if there are other entries clearly labeled as "guardianship of minors" or
something similar before and after this case. That would be a stumbling block
to this theory that they were yet living but minors.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 03:01:04

Hi Everyone:

In a message dated 7/14/2007 8:49:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

Vickie what I was mulling over in my head was... could this be a record of

her administration not because they were *dead* but rather because they were

heirs and minors? That is, a guardianship ?

That seems to be where you're going.
I wonder if other records from that same work that could be consulted to
see
if there are other entries clearly labeled as "guardianship of minors" or
something similar before and after this case. That would be a stumbling
block
to this theory that they were yet living but minors.


This was not a guardianship, it was a petition for the adminstration of
the estates of the three deceased children. It was never stated or implied
that they were minors.

Joan Burdyck




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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 03:10:04

In a message dated 7/14/2007 5:48:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

There is absolutely nothing in any Northumberland County, VA record book,
order book, deed or will that mentions an earlier wife of Richard.
Nothing.>>>
You know quite well that many of these records have been destroyed.
So your logic... isn't.
There are many many relationships we have to assume because we don't have a
record stating it exactly.
This is not the first case of a missing wife, there are many.

Will Johnson





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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 03:17:37

In a message dated 7/14/2007 5:48:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Do you have anything to prove that Jane was not their mother or are you
going on the assumption that because she was 12 when John was born, she couldn't
have been his mother>>>





--------
She wasn't "12 when John was born"
She was 12 when SOME "John" was born.
This does not mean it was the same John, as has been pointed out.

The notes by Alice Algood state that THIS John was born c 1693.
Those notes should be consulted to see what the source is to give John that
birthyear.
If there is no source, then fine. If there is, and it's good, then we have
a problem
As has been pointed out.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 03:17:38

In a message dated 7/14/2007 5:48:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Do you have anything to prove that Jane was not their mother or are you
going on the assumption that because she was 12 when John was born, she couldn't
have been his mother>>>





--------
She wasn't "12 when John was born"
She was 12 when SOME "John" was born.
This does not mean it was the same John, as has been pointed out.

The notes by Alice Algood state that THIS John was born c 1693.
Those notes should be consulted to see what the source is to give John that
birthyear.
If there is no source, then fine. If there is, and it's good, then we have
a problem
As has been pointed out.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 03:17:38

In a message dated 7/14/2007 5:48:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Do you have anything to prove that Jane was not their mother or are you
going on the assumption that because she was 12 when John was born, she couldn't
have been his mother>>>





--------
She wasn't "12 when John was born"
She was 12 when SOME "John" was born.
This does not mean it was the same John, as has been pointed out.

The notes by Alice Algood state that THIS John was born c 1693.
Those notes should be consulted to see what the source is to give John that
birthyear.
If there is no source, then fine. If there is, and it's good, then we have
a problem
As has been pointed out.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 03:18:03

In a message dated 7/14/2007 5:54:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

This was not a guardianship, it was a petition for the adminstration of the
estates of the three deceased children. It was never stated or implied that
they were minors.


--------------
It was not stated that they were deceased either.



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

Vickie Elam White

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 15 jul 2007 03:47:05

Joan,

Did you see the original record, or was it in a compilation of Northumberland Co.VA records? What was your source for this record? As I mentioned before, Virginia Genealogies of Families, Vol. 4:881 makes no mention of the children being deceased. In the Virginia Genealogies of Families article, the statement that they were minors was included. I am perfectly willing to admit that my interpretation is incorrect and/or the author of that article didn't quote it properly, but I need to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here.

And, as I read what you wrote below, I still believe that "said Dec'eds Estate" means Richard Rogers' estate, not that of the children.


Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: Joemaryjoa@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com ; VEWhite@nycap.rr.com ; WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Exact wording of Rogers children record


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

pj.evans

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av pj.evans » 15 jul 2007 03:48:22

On Jul 14, 7:33 pm, Joemary...@aol.com wrote:
Hi Everyone:

In a message dated 7/14/2007 10:17:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

That's not relevant. She is stating that John the son was b abt 1693. The
issue is not whether her notes are more accurate than an Order Book, since
that Order Book may be discussing an entirely different John entirely.

Excuse me. Not relevant. You are the one that brought it up. What
makes you an authority on which John this might be. How long have you being
researching Northumberland County genealogy? You are just a sore loser. You say
that Jane was not the mother of the three deceased children, then you say
that the children weren't deceased. I have proven that you are incorrect. You
say that there was a first wife, but you can't produce one shread of
documentation to show this. Also, I proved that there were at least one other girl in
Northumberland (I gave one example, there are others) that married extremely
early and you have not mentioned one word about that. Because I proved with
documentation that I was correct. Sorry, you have to come up with more than you
have to prove that the entry in the order book is wrong.

Joan

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

What *exactly* does it say in the Order Book?
*That's* the question.
So far I haven't seen anything I'd consider proof of your argument.
What I *have* seen is a lot of namecalling and handwaving.

And I seriously doubt that 12-year-old girls were marrying and having
children, even in Virginia, at that time. 15 maybe, 16 or 17 yes.
You're on the extremely low end of puberty there.

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:19:02

Hi Will:

In a message dated 7/14/2007 9:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

The notes by Alice Algood state that THIS John was born c 1693.
Those notes should be consulted to see what the source is to give John that
birthyear.
If there is no source, then fine. If there is, and it's good, then we have
a problem
As has been pointed out.

Do you have the correct John here? John Rogers, son of William and
Elizabeth Dale Rogers was born about 1693/1695. Post of the notes of Alice
Algood. Let us all read them. Are her records more accurate than Order Book
entries?

Joan







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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:19:04

Hi Will:

In a message dated 7/14/2007 9:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

The notes by Alice Algood state that THIS John was born c 1693.
Those notes should be consulted to see what the source is to give John that
birthyear.
If there is no source, then fine. If there is, and it's good, then we have
a problem
As has been pointed out.

Do you have the correct John here? John Rogers, son of William and
Elizabeth Dale Rogers was born about 1693/1695. Post of the notes of Alice
Algood. Let us all read them. Are her records more accurate than Order Book
entries?

Joan







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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:19:04

Hi Will:

In a message dated 7/14/2007 9:10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

The notes by Alice Algood state that THIS John was born c 1693.
Those notes should be consulted to see what the source is to give John that
birthyear.
If there is no source, then fine. If there is, and it's good, then we have
a problem
As has been pointed out.

Do you have the correct John here? John Rogers, son of William and
Elizabeth Dale Rogers was born about 1693/1695. Post of the notes of Alice
Algood. Let us all read them. Are her records more accurate than Order Book
entries?

Joan







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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:21:03

In a message dated 7/14/2007 7:13:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Do you have the correct John here? John Rogers, son of William and
Elizabeth Dale Rogers was born about 1693/1695. Post of the notes of Alice Algood.
Let us all read them. Are her records more accurate than Order Book
entries?>>>

------------------
That's not relevant. She is stating that John the son was b abt 1693. The
issue is not whether her notes are more accurate than an Order Book, since
that Order Book may be discussing an entirely different John entirely.

Will





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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:22:02

Hi Will:

READ MY POST ON THE EXACT WORDING OF THE ENTRY ON PAGE 249, THE CHILDREN
WERE DECEASED. YOU WANTED DOCUMENTATION, YOU HAVE IT.

Joan Burdyck



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:36:03

Hi Everyone:

In a message dated 7/14/2007 10:17:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

That's not relevant. She is stating that John the son was b abt 1693. The
issue is not whether her notes are more accurate than an Order Book, since
that Order Book may be discussing an entirely different John entirely.

Excuse me. Not relevant. You are the one that brought it up. What
makes you an authority on which John this might be. How long have you being
researching Northumberland County genealogy? You are just a sore loser. You say
that Jane was not the mother of the three deceased children, then you say
that the children weren't deceased. I have proven that you are incorrect. You
say that there was a first wife, but you can't produce one shread of
documentation to show this. Also, I proved that there were at least one other girl in
Northumberland (I gave one example, there are others) that married extremely
early and you have not mentioned one word about that. Because I proved with
documentation that I was correct. Sorry, you have to come up with more than you
have to prove that the entry in the order book is wrong.

Joan





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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:50:05

In a message dated 7/14/2007 7:33:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Excuse me. Not relevant. You are the one that brought it up. What makes
you an authority on which John this might be. How long have you being
researching Northumberland County genealogy? You are just a sore loser. You say
that Jane was not the mother of the three deceased children, then you say
that the children weren't deceased. I have proven that you are incorrect. You
say that there was a first wife, but you can't produce one shread of
documentation to show this. Also, I proved that there were at least one other girl
in Northumberland (I gave one example, there are others) that married
extremely early and you have not mentioned one word about that. Because I proved
with documentation that I was correct. Sorry, you have to come up with more
than you have to prove that the entry in the order book is wrong.>>>
------------
Red herring argument. Also partly incorrect.
I never said that Jane was not the mother of the three children mentioned in
the admin proceedings.

I never said I was an "authority" on Northumberland County genealogy. I
never said I was an authority on "which John this might be".
In fact I've been pretty clear that we *must not rely* on authorities at
all. The documentation is the only thing relevant.

I did not say "the three children weren't deceased", I said it's possible.

We cannot prove the wives of hundreds of colonials, does this mean they
never existed? No, it means the records from that time period are sketchy and
have to be supplemented by argumentation to fill in the gaps. The very fact
that I have to point this out, gives the lie to your claim to have extensive
research in this area. Anyone who has extensively researched the community
knows that there are many many gaps in the documents.

I did produce evidence that there MAY be a first wife. The evidence is that
I have serious doubts that there was a 12-year old mother.

You have not "proved with documentation" that you are correct. You've
merely stated over and over the same points, which were never in doubt. While
deftly trying to wave your hands to fill in those areas that are in doubt,
without any documentation to prove it.


Will Johnson





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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 04:51:02

In a message dated 7/14/2007 7:47:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

And, as I read what you wrote below, I still believe that "said Dec'eds
Estate" means Richard Rogers' estate, not that of the children. >>
Oh that's a good point, I didn't think of that possible interpretation.

Will



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

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 15 jul 2007 04:57:17

On Jul 14, 10:05 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just thought of something else.
How do dead minor children have any estate at all?

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


To the best of my knowledge, they don't.

I do have first hand knowledge of a pregnant 12 year old however- a
victim of sexual abuse by a family member, and in 10 years of working
in a medical lab it is the only case of such that I have seen.

Then there is the case of Henry VII's mother, a bit over 12.

In most historical cases you'll find that giving birth at such an
early age causes harm to the female reproductive tract and prevents
later births.

Even on Pitcarn Island I haven't found any cases of 12 year olds
giving birth- and that was probably the most isolated population
outside of the Amazon jungle.

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 05:01:03

In a message dated 7/14/2007 7:10:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

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.>>
What is *your* source for this record.
You did not yourself read the Order Book I'm sure, so you must be copying
this from another source.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 05:10:04

I just thought of something else.
How do dead minor children have any estate at all?



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

pj.evans

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av pj.evans » 15 jul 2007 14:46:46

On Jul 14, 8:57 pm, "the_vermina...@comcast.net"
<the_vermina...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:05 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

I just thought of something else.
How do dead minor children have any estate at all?

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

To the best of my knowledge, they don't.


Could have been stuff left to them by their father, and administered
as part of his estate until they were of age.

That these were minors at death does *nothing* to prove the age of
their mother.
The dates I've seen for the older children vary widely enough that I
can't conclude that she was married at twelve. I'd say that 16 years
old would be a better estimate, and that the earlier dates are for
children of an earlier wife (if there was one), for children of a
different family, or wrong (probably someone was guessing).

Vickie Elam White

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 15 jul 2007 17:38:53

Joan,

The more I read this, the more I agree with you on one point - that these
children were dead by the time of the 1703 action. However, that doesn't
prove or disprove your assertion that Jane was their birthmother. She was
called their mother, but she could have been their step-mother. Without
deeds or some other documentation naming her as Richard Rogers' wife in
1676, I would have to say that there was *probably* but not definitely an
earlier wife. So the trick now is to find out more about Richard's earlier
life.

I have no axe to grind here -- this is not my ancestry, nor do I feel that
12-year old mothers *never* happened in early VA. But I just think that is
was unusual enough to raise a red flag, and the documentation you offer
isn't enough to prove your case.


Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: Joemaryjoa@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com ; VEWhite@nycap.rr.com ; WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Exact wording of Rogers children record


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"

<snip>

joseph cook

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av joseph cook » 15 jul 2007 21:41:07

On Jul 15, 12:38 pm, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWh...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
Joan,

The more I read this, the more I agree with you on one point - that these
children were dead by the time of the 1703 action. However, that doesn't
prove or disprove your assertion that Jane was their birthmother. She was
called their mother, but she could have been their step-mother.

I haven't been following this thread but wanted to throw in my 2 cents
that anyone who has done any amount of 17th century research knows
that when someone is referred to as "her children" or "their mother"
in a proceeding such as this, it always refers to an actual mother,
not a step-mother. This probate proceedings used this language at
the time intentionally to designate an actual mother/child
relationship, otherwise there would be no need to even state the
relationship (for legally there would be none)

Joe Cook

Vickie Elam White

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 15 jul 2007 22:07:10

Joan,

Actually, if the court record held true-to-form, then the 3 children were named in birth order. So, since we know that John was b. in 1676, then Richard was born before 1676. That makes sense, since he would have been named after his father. So, allowing for the *typical* spacing of 2 years between children, then Richard was *probably* born ca 1674, when Jane was 10. Still think she was their mother?


Vickie Elam White

----- Original Message -----
From: Joemaryjoa@aol.com
To: VEWhite@nycap.rr.com ; GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com ; WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Hi Vickie:
In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:39:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:


Joan,

The more I read this, the more I agree with you on one point - that these
children were dead by the time of the 1703 action. However, that doesn't
prove or disprove your assertion that Jane was their birthmother. She was
called their mother, but she could have been their step-mother. Without
deeds or some other documentation naming her as Richard Rogers' wife in
1676, I would have to say that there was *probably* but not definitely an
earlier wife. So the trick now is to find out more about Richard's earlier
life.

I have no axe to grind here -- this is not my ancestry, nor do I feel that
12-year old mothers *never* happened in early VA. But I just think that is
was unusual enough to raise a red flag, and the documentation you offer
isn't enough to prove your case.



Sorry that you don't agree. If they were not Jane's children, the document would have read something to the effect that they were the children of Richard Rogers, or they could have been referred to as her children-in-law. Her name would not have been mentioned as their mother if she wasn't..

As to the your statement, "nor do I feel that 12-year old mothers *never* happened in early VA.", unfortunately it happened a lot more than we realize. Also, keep in mind of the three children mentioned, we do not know the birth dates of Richard and Hannah. You can't make a statement that she was probably a step mother of all three, especially when the dates of birth are not know.

Richard Rogers is a brother of one of my ancestors. I have no ax to grind either. I was just trying to share information that I had and because some of the content was not what some people considered to be proper and correct, then they decided not to believe it. Well, that is the way it is. That's up to them, but they are picking and choosing what they want to believe and not what really happened. There are things that I have learned about some of my ancestors that I was not happen to learn about, but that was the way it was.

Thank you for your comments.

Joan



Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: Joemaryjoa@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com ; VEWhite@nycap.rr.com ; WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Exact wording of Rogers children record


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"

<snip>







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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:18:07

In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:15:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

The deceased refers to the three children. If this referred to Richard
Rogers, than all of the children would have been mentioned, not just these
three.


No, only the *living* children. Not all the children.
And if this was a minors case, ONLY the minor children would be mentioned,
not all the children.
The ones already in their majority would not need someone else to administer
for them.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:19:02

Will:
In a message dated 7/15/2007 3:31:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:15:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

The deceased refers to the three children. If this referred to Richard
Rogers, than all of the children would have been mentioned, not just these
three.


No, only the *living* children. Not all the children.
And if this was a minors case, ONLY the minor children would be mentioned,
not all the children.
The ones already in their majority would not need someone else to
administer for them.

The children were dead. Please read the document. Since they passed
away after the death of their father, the portion of his estate that would have
gone to them, now becomes their estates. It doesn't matter if they were 1 or
100. This was 6 years after Richard Rogers had passed away!!!

You need to show documentation to disprove this.

Joan






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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:20:04

In a message dated 7/15/2007 3:45:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

What's your proof?



Where's yours that they were minors?





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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:21:02

Will:

In a message dated 7/15/2007 3:32:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

Wrong. That's the way you keep *stating* it was with no documentation to
back you up.
You claimed earlier that you had lots of documentation.

Now you present one thin argument and nothing else.
Where's the ten, twenty and fifty other 12 year old mothers?
I'll wait and see.

I think that the best thing for you to do, is get yourself to the
courthouse and check the records yourself. I gave youinformation on another 11 year
old child bride, my ancestor, but you didn't make one comment about it. You
have not believed one word that I said, that is your problem. I really don't
care. I have a lot more documentation, but do you think that I want you to
use my research on your website? Do it yourself. Believe it or not. Since you
keep asking for more and more documentation, my husband wants to know if you
are going to start paying for it. He said the research has cost him a lot of
money.

I have presented my case. Believe it or not. I know the truth. I
don't pick and choose what I think is the acceptable thing that happened. That
defeats what we are looking for, the truth.

Joan







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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:22:02

In a message dated 7/15/2007 3:34:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:31:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Joemaryjoa@aol.com writes:

"Boy, do they have a lot to
learn." "They need to get themselves down to the courthouse and start
reading." Sorry, if you didn't think this practice happened, but it did.




--------------
And some day Joan you'll realize that people on *this* list do not believe
claims to things that are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.
So present it.

Will

No, you prove me wrong. I gave you another case and you still have not made
mention of it. SHOW DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE ME WRONG.

Joan





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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:23:02

Will,

Prove that they were minors.

Joan


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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:25:03

There isn't any to "prove you wrong"
You seem to think there's only Firm Proof for each statement, is this your
first day at doing genealogy?

We work all day long with fuzzy arguments. You however have firm conviction
to replace any loosey-goosey argument don't you? When you start treating
the documentation with the gray shades it really presents, then I'll listen to
your arguments.

Will



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

Gjest

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:26:02

In a message dated 7/15/2007 1:14:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

have a lot more documentation, but do you think that I want you to use my
research on your website?>>
-----------------
It's very easy to make wild claims, isn't it?
You are an old hand at that I can see.



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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:27:03

In a message dated 7/15/2007 1:17:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

Where's yours that they were minors?>>>

I don't have any, and you don't either.
That's the whole point isn't it





************************************** 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 22:38:53

Joes Cook wrote:


anyone who has done any amount of 17th century research knows
that when someone is referred to as "her children" or "their mother"
in a proceeding such as this, it always refers to an actual mother,
not a step-mother. This probate proceedings used this language at
the time intentionally to designate an actual mother/child
relationship, otherwise there would be no need to even state the
relationship (for legally there would be none)


No. The wording is usually 'natural' or 'natural and legal' children of ...

It is the 'natural' that defines the blood relationship.

Chris

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:40:03

Will:

In a message dated 7/15/2007 4:07:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:

I can't believe you actually believe what you wrote.
The "portion of his estate that would have gone to them" as minors is
exactly ZERO.
You haven't proven anything that they were minors or not minors and yet you
use that thin argument to hang everything else upon.

Dead minors get nothing from their father unless it passes by WILL, and then
only if they outlive the father in the first place.

The children were alive when their father died. It wouldn't matter if
he left a will or not, or whether they were 1 or 100, by law they were entitled
to something after all debts were paid as they were still alive at that
point. An adminstration would have been set up either way, with a will or without
a will. Their mother was entitled to 1/3 of the estate and the rest was
divided among the children. Since they died after the death of their father, the
portion that they were entitled to at his death, would now have to be accounted
for and distributed. That was for the court to decide. As Jane had
remarried, Christopher Neale would have come in for Jane's portion. Think about
this!! Since Jane was their mother and next of kin, and she had remarried,
Christopher would have come in for a lot more money. If they weren't Jane's
children, then the court would have to decide how their estates would be distributed.
Jane's other children might have a claim and also the siblings of Richard
Rogers or the family of an alleged first wife. Jane would not automatically be
entitled to the money of children of a previous wife. She was asking for
administration of their estates because she was their mother. The court record
states that she is their mother, not stepmother, not mother-in-law, their mother.


Joan



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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:55:05

In a message dated 7/15/2007 1:38:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Joemaryjoa
writes:

The children were alive when their father died. It wouldn't matter if he
left a will or not, or whether they were 1 or 100, by law they were entitled
to something after all debts were paid as they were still alive at that point.
An adminstration would have been set up either way, with a will or without
a will.>>>
Prove that there was a guardianship and an annual accounting from 1698 to
1703.
Prove that something occurred IN 1703 that would suddenly change all that,
and require the mother or stepmother to go to court for a new "Commission of
Administration".
Prove that they were minors when their father died in 1697 or 1698.

Your argument is weak. Anyone can see that.



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

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2007 22:56:03

Hi Joe:

Thank you very much.

Joan



**************************************
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 23:03:06

pj evans wrote in reply to Will Johnson's:


How do dead minor children have any estate at all?


Could have been stuff left to them by their father, and administered
as part of his estate until they were of age.


Or, another very common form of inheritance - left by the grandparents, to
be administered by the father until they were of a certain age. This might
not be 21, but 23 or 24 or later (so it's dangerous to assume that a grant
of administration applied only to minors).

Children, even as minors, had rights - hence the 'in satisfaction of their
child's portion' in wills. I suppose that if that right became passed on (eg
by an early marriage and children) or clouded (eg by terms in a will), their
individual decease might not result in their portions being automatically
divided among their siblings.

Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 15 jul 2007 23:04:07

Joan wrote:


<snip>
Their mother was entitled to 1/3 of the estate and the rest was
divided among the children. Since they died after the death of their
father, the
portion that they were entitled to at his death, would now have to be
accounted
for and distributed. That was for the court to decide. As Jane had
remarried, Christopher Neale would have come in for Jane's portion.
snip



Whatever the merits of any of the other issues and arguments in this thread,
this one is not unlikely to be sustainable - unless the customary laws of
Northumberland County differed significantly from those elsewhere.

The widow was customarily entitled to her portion of 1/3 or 1/2 during her
lifetime or until she remarried. The re-marriage to Christopher Neale would
automatically have negated her rights.

Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 15 jul 2007 23:13:03

Joan wrote:

Remember this petition for the administration was submitted approximately
6
years after Richard Rogers died. It doesn't take 6 years to administer a
will.

No. It takes as long as it needs to take.

Delays could have been caused by family complications, politics, legal
action, ships and cargoes suddenly appearing, etc, etc.

Chris

WJhonson

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 01:42:51

In a message dated 07/14/07 13:15:01 Pacific Standard Time, Joemaryjoa writes:
Jean was only 11 years old at the time of her marriage and according to family tradition, she was pregnant at the time with Jane, my great-great-great grandmother.>>

Okay you wanted a response to this ?
I'm not sure you really do.
"Family tradition" ?
I really don't think I need to say any more.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 01:45:25

n a message dated 07/14/07 14:11:28 Pacific Standard Time, Joemaryjoa writes:
I gave you the correct birth date of John Rogers, son of Richard Rogers as it appears in the St. Stephen''s Parish Birth and Death Register. There is no other birth record for a John Rogers in that register!!!!!! What don't you see?>>

What I don't see is how you can say in one breath "not all the children of Richard ...were recorded" and in the very NEXT breath you can assume that because one was, named John, that this must be the Same John that you want to make it.

It's quite possible, as far as we know, that they had fifteen children all named John in a row who all died as infants, and who all weren't recorded except the one. You yourself pointed out that there were many children, and we have birth dates for only three of those.

You just don't know. That's the point. Stop trying to compel us, through repetition, to believe something that is not knowable.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Proof of early age brides in Northumberland County, VA

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 01:47:50

n a message dated 07/14/07 14:11:28 Pacific Standard Time, Joemaryjoa writes:
.. If Jane wasn't their mother, she would not have been entitled to their portions, >>>

-----------------
Please provide proof that Jane was claiming to be "entitled to their portions" ?
What I see is a request to administer.
That is not a claim to the portion.
In a substantial number of administrations the administrator had no legal claim to any part of the estate whatsoever.
That didn't of course prevent them from figuring out a way to take some of it.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Purbeck Temple son of Mary Knapp

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 02:11:47

Thanks John, that certainly gives us some new territory to explore.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Purbeck Temple son of Mary Knapp

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 02:11:47

Thanks John, that certainly gives us some new territory to explore.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Purbeck Temple son of Mary Knapp

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 02:11:47

Thanks John, that certainly gives us some new territory to explore.

Will

Gjest

Re: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2007 02:42:52

My ancestors are from Northumberland and while I am not as familiar with the Rogers family, I am certainly with the Preslys. I descend from Mary, Jane's sister, who married Charnock Cox. I am in agreement with Vicki's post that indicates Richard Rogers was married before Jane which seems to be borne out by the St. Stephen parish register. I know Mr. Haynie, also a descendant of original settlers, is a wealth of information. However, I believe it highly unlikely that Jane was having children at 10. I have researched Northumberland, read Sparacio, and spent many hours in the Northumberland historical library, etc.

Richard Rogers and Jane Presly Rogers had four children.
Richard Rogers left a will.
His children mentioned were:
Richard, born circa 1688-90
John b.c. 1693,
Hannah, b.c. 1695.
Jane, born 12 April 1686 (Fleet: Colonial Abstracts) was not mentioned and at 17 may have been married or died.

You quote:
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 (@15 yrs), John (10yrs. ) and Hannah (@8yrs.) Rogers the said Janes Children giving Caution for their Due administrac'on on the said Dec'eds Estate According to Law."

I am reading of this out of context, nevertheless, am familiar with the manner of wording in Northumberland which, to me,indicates that Richard, John and Hannah were heirs to their deceased father's estate and the court was directing that Christopher Neale and Jane Presly Rogers Neale were charged by the court with due diligence in the administration of their legacies.

Most probably by the first wife, he had:
John, chr. 18 Dec. 1676 , son to Richard (Fleet:Colonial Abstracts)
William, chr. 12 February 1679, son to Richard. (Fleet:Colonial Abstracts)
These children of Richard were adults at the time of the 1703 action.

Comments from Alice Algood. “In Fleet's Northumbria : Richard Rogers was a Justice in 1685 and 1687 and was sued by George Groves in 1696, just before or just after he died. Are there deeds of Northumberland for any property given to either William or John Rogers by old Capt. John or by his son, Richard. There was a John Rogers, Jr., mentioned in 1678 and 1679 when he was then deceased and owed Edw. Elliot 1302 pounds of tobacco. There was a judgment against his widow, Joane, the admr. of John Rogers estate, for the balance, 20 April 1681.”

(Fleet:Colonial Abstracts)Capt. John Rogers holds land at the head of the Yeacomico river in right of his wife Anne, relict of Mr. Francis Clay and relict of Mr. John Temple. 1670.

I have also found in Gray’s Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants a William Rogers granted 500 A near SW formerly called Chettwood SW, adj. Col. Matthew Kempe. Land was granted Mr. Thomas Chettwood 9 July 1667, who sold to Major Edward Duke and given to his daughter now wife of William Rogers…1695

I find an instance in Fleet where a James Rogers who died ca. 1712 named his brother “Richard Rogers”, however I find no William Rogers of the right age to have been the brother of Richard Rogers.
And, this seems to be a Richard of a latter birth. There is mention of a slightly earlier William Rogers who is named as the son of a Henry Rye in the latter’s will of 1659.
Is William Rogers named as a brother of Richard Rogers in his father’s will?

I do believe that a timeframe would be useful in drawing conclusions. When was your William Rogers born?

Pat
From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
Date: 2007/07/15 Sun PM 05:07:10 EDT> To: <Joemaryjoa@aol.com>, <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>, <WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Joan,

Actually, if the court record held true-to-form, then the 3 children were named in birth order. So, since we know that John was b. in 1676, then Richard was born before 1676. That makes sense, since he would have been named after his father. So, allowing for the *typical* spacing of 2 years between children, then Richard was *probably* born ca 1674, when Jane was 10. Still think she was their mother?


Vickie Elam White

----- Original Message -----
From: Joemaryjoa@aol.com
To: VEWhite@nycap.rr.com ; GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com ; WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Hi Vickie:
In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:39:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:


Joan,

The more I read this, the more I agree with you on one point - that these
children were dead by the time of the 1703 action. However, that doesn't
prove or disprove your assertion that Jane was their birthmother. She was
called their mother, but she could have been their step-mother. Without
deeds or some other documentation naming her as Richard Rogers' wife in
1676, I would have to say that there was *probably* but not definitely an
earlier wife. So the trick now is to find out more about Richard's earlier
life.

I have no axe to grind here -- this is not my ancestry, nor do I feel that
12-year old mothers *never* happened in early VA. But I just think that is
was unusual enough to raise a red flag, and the documentation you offer
isn't enough to prove your case.



Sorry that you don't agree. If they were not Jane's children, the document would have read something to the effect that they were the children of Richard Rogers, or they could have been referred to as her children-in-law. Her name would not have been mentioned as their mother if she wasn't..

As to the your statement, "nor do I feel that 12-year old mothers *never* happened in early VA.", unfortunately it happened a lot more than we realize. Also, keep in mind of the three children mentioned, we do not know the birth dates of Richard and Hannah. You can't make a statement that she was probably a step mother of all three, especially when the dates of birth are not know.

Richard Rogers is a brother of one of my ancestors. I have no ax to grind either. I was just trying to share information that I had and because some of the content was not what some people considered to be proper and correct, then they decided not to believe it. Well, that is the way it is. That's up to them, but they are picking and choosing what they want to believe and not what really happened. There are things that I have learned about some of my ancestors that I was not happen to learn about, but that was the way it was.

Thank you for your comments.

Joan


Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: Joemaryjoa@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com ; VEWhite@nycap.rr.com ; WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:10 PM
Subject: Exact wording of Rogers children record


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"


snip







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

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

WJhonson

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 03:05:47

<<In a message dated 07/15/07 18:50:31 Pacific Standard Time, dantemortem@gmail.com writes:
dear list,

can anyone tell me, in the early 16th century Herefordshire Acts of Office,
what is meant by a charge of "incontinence" between two individuals? >>

Pre-marital or extra-martial sexual relations.

Will Johnson

joseph cook

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av joseph cook » 16 jul 2007 12:23:16

No. The wording is usually 'natural' or 'natural and legal' children of ...

It is the 'natural' that defines the blood relationship.

What?? The phrase "natural and legal" never (ever) appeared in a will
of this era and location.

In fact, in 17th century records, if someone was referred to as a
"natural child" of someone, this would strictly indicate a child that
was conceived and born outside of marriage. The usage you refer to
would not arise until later.

1828 Webster's Dictionary entry for bastard: "B''ASTARD, n. A natural
child;"

Joe Cook

Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record - correction

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 16 jul 2007 12:57:32

I wrote:

No. The wording is usually 'natural' or 'natural and legal' children of
...

Oops, sorry, my absent-minded typo - I should have written 'natural and
lawful'.


Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 16 jul 2007 13:05:58

Joe Cook wrote:

What?? The phrase "natural and legal" never (ever) appeared in a will
of this era and location.

Oops, sorry, my absent-minded typo - I should have written 'natural and
lawful'.


In fact, in 17th century records, if someone was referred to as a
"natural child" of someone, this would strictly indicate a child that
was conceived and born outside of marriage. The usage you refer to
would not arise until later.

I can't comment on the records of Northumberland County, which may have had
its own peculiarities, but the term 'natural' simply expresses a blood
relationship (as opposed to one by marriage).

In parish records, the word 'natural' is a nearly always a synonym for
bastard/illegitimate.

In wills, the word 'natural' is usually (but not always) an indication of
illegitimacy.

In probate documents, the phrases 'natural' and 'natural and lawful' were
used to indicate a blood relationship, in the second case a clearly
legitimate one.

The phrasing usually comes in the obligation of the administration bond that
sets up the guardianship of the children, along the lines of (I'm using here
a printed original form of 1665 - the bits in brackets would be
hand-written) - 'The Condition of this Obligation is such, That [name of
administrator] do well and truly administer ...... likewise well and
faithfully educate and bring up with Meat, Drink and Cloathing according to
[space for inserted 'his', 'her', 'their'] Calling [inserted names of
children] the natural and lawful Child of the said deceased during [space
for inserted 'his', 'her', 'their'] minority ....


Chris


1828 Webster's Dictionary entry for bastard: "B''ASTARD, n. A natural
child;"

Joe Cook


"joseph cook" <joecook@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184584996.752092.164400@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
No. The wording is usually 'natural' or 'natural and legal' children of
...

It is the 'natural' that defines the blood relationship.

What?? The phrase "natural and legal" never (ever) appeared in a will
of this era and location.

In fact, in 17th century records, if someone was referred to as a
"natural child" of someone, this would strictly indicate a child that
was conceived and born outside of marriage. The usage you refer to
would not arise until later.

1828 Webster's Dictionary entry for bastard: "B''ASTARD, n. A natural
child;"

Joe Cook


Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 16 jul 2007 13:51:44

I wrote:


Whatever the merits of any of the other issues and arguments in this
thread,
this one is not unlikely to be sustainable


Oh dear, oh dear ... I really must learn to proofread.

That should have read 'not likely to be sustainable' or 'unlikely to be
sustainable'!

Sorry about that.

Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 16 jul 2007 15:02:28

Joan wrote:

Women in that period were considered and treated by some as no more
than
chattel. If you go through the birth records of this period, most entries
only had the father's name. A few included the mother's name, but not
many. It
was very rare for a women to own property. If she did, then it became her
husband's at the time of their marriage. If her father died and left her
something, her husband would petition the court for her portion of the
estate. Not
her, her husband. As far as deeds are concerned, it was very rare for a
woman's name to be on a deed with her husband.


This is quite an exaggeration.

Little point first - it was quite normal for the wife's name to be on
certain types of documents, e,g, feet of fines (where one party might be
John Smith & Alice his wife).

Propertied families made a lot of effort to ensure that their womenfolk had
independent lifestyles. The marriage contract was one such. To give an
example:

The diary of my ancestor, Daniel Dickinson (a lawyer and yeoman farmer of
Cumberland in England), has survived - and in it (in 1694) he detailed the
terms of his eldest daughter's marriage to John Hamilton, a tobacco/coal
merchant sailing between Virginia, Dublin and Whitehaven.

It this John Hamilton got £100. What what did he have to do in return? He
had to surrender all his property in Whitehaven to his future wife. She was
to own the 'houses, gardens, messuages and tenements' for life, unless she
had children - in which case, the heir would get 50% when he reached 21 and
she would remain the owner of the other 50%. If she was childless, the
Hamilton family would only get the property back at her death.

Spinsters and widows owned their own property. In the case of the former,
it's more than likely that their affairs were handled by male relatives; but
the widow could be a very powerful and independent lady. Daniel's Diary
makes a number of references to his mother (actually his stepmother) and it
is very evident that she ran her widow's portion (50% of a prosperous farm),
negotiating with the local parson about tithes, etc..

Chris

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2007 15:20:05

Hi Vickie:
In a message dated 7/15/2007 5:07:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

Joan,

Actually, if the court record held true-to-form, then the 3 children were
named in birth order. So, since we know that John was b. in 1676, then Richard
was born before 1676. That makes sense, since he would have been named
after his father. So, allowing for the *typical* spacing of 2 years between
children, then Richard was *probably* born ca 1674, when Jane was 10. Still
think she was their mother?


Yes, children were usually named in the order of their birth in a will.
But, this was not a will, it was a petition for an administration. The
children could have been named in the order of their death as the estates might
have been set up in that order. I have found that in this time period in
Northumberland, some families had a child every year, so the "typical" two year
spacing wouldn't hold true for many of these families. Also, remember there was
miscarriages and stillbirths. People did not live by a "typical" birth plan.
This "typical" two year spacing is something someone came up with and is not
based on documented fact. Am I to assume that you think this "typical" two
year spacing is more important that the birth entries in the St. Stephen's
Parish Register? Also, the Wicomico Parish Birth Register is missing, no where to
be found, so many birth records for this county are missing.

The first child could have been named for the father, but a very large
percentage of families named the first born son for his paternal grandfather.
Yes, I still think she was the mother. The document says Mother, not
mother-in-law or stepmother. This was a small community, the clerk of the court
would have known the family status. I didn't write the document, just related it
to the group. Until additional information can be found, I stand by my belief
that she was the mother of the children. I understand completely your
reluctance to accept that some of these girls were marrying and having children so
young. It insults our sensitivities. I couldn't believe it at first also,
but found that it was true. I had a lengthy discussion with Preston Haynie at
the historical society about this when I first came across an early marriage
and birth. I asked him if this was possible and he assured me that it was. As
disgusting as it sounds, it happened.

Women in that period were considered and treated by some as no more than
chattel. If you go through the birth records of this period, most entries
only had the father's name. A few included the mother's name, but not many. It
was very rare for a women to own property. If she did, then it became her
husband's at the time of their marriage. If her father died and left her
something, her husband would petition the court for her portion of the estate. Not
her, her husband. As far as deeds are concerned, it was very rare for a
woman's name to be on a deed with her husband. He owned everything, the land, the
crops, the furniture and the household items. When, he passed, she was
entitled to 1/3 only of his estate after debts were paid. In some wills, the
husband "allowed his widow" to live on the land until she remarried or the eldest
descendant came of age. There is one will recorded in Northumberland County
that states that the portion of the estate that is to go to one daughter, will be
held in trust for her by her brother, until her husband passes away. Her
father did not like his daughter's husband and was going to be sure that he
didn't get any of his estate. The man was king. There were no divorces, but there
are several recorded incidents of women petitioning the court for separate
maintenance. A few were granted, one case in point was a lengthy court order,
dated August 16, 1700, (Northumberland County, VA Order Book 1699-1713, Part 1,
page 119), between William Wildy and his wife, Elizabeth Motley Wildy.

It might also be interesting to this group to know that these people
believed in witchcraft. There are several recorded documents on this also.

I have presented the documented information that I have. Because some
of you might not believe what I have presented, that some these facts disturb
your sense of what is right and proper, that does not make your opinion
correct. I was presenting what I had and I was ridiculed. I was only the messenger.
Then, Will Johnson said that he would "flick" his nose at Mr. Preston
Haynie, this scholarly gentleman, who lives his life for genealogy. Will Johnson
does not know this man, but yet he makes a statement like that. It was uncalled
for. So, I will not longer be a part of this thread. I will not comment or
response in any matter to anything on this thread. I don't care what comments
are made. The comments are petty.

In addition, I would like to apologize to the members of this group for
my part in the discord of this thread. Also, I would like to thank the
members of this group that have E-mailed me privately with support and kind words.
I really appreciate it, thanks again.

Joan







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

pj.evans

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av pj.evans » 16 jul 2007 16:07:11

On Jul 16, 7:02 am, "Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
Joan wrote:
Women in that period were considered and treated by some as no more
than
chattel. If you go through the birth records of this period, most entries
only had the father's name. A few included the mother's name, but not
many. It
was very rare for a women to own property. If she did, then it became her
husband's at the time of their marriage. If her father died and left her
something, her husband would petition the court for her portion of the
estate. Not
her, her husband. As far as deeds are concerned, it was very rare for a
woman's name to be on a deed with her husband.

This is quite an exaggeration.

Little point first - it was quite normal for the wife's name to be on
certain types of documents, e,g, feet of fines (where one party might be
John Smith & Alice his wife).

[snip]


No evidence has been provided yet that Jane was the mother of any
child born before 1680. So any argument that she was married and a
mother at 12 is still unproven.

That was where this started.

And, just as an aside, I have transcriptions of a deed (settlement,
not sale of property) where the mother of the children was apparently
claiming administration of an estate where the sons were both about
forty, married at least fifteen years, and with children. In her will
she appoints a guardian of sorts for her son by her first husband,
which son had to have been at least sixty at the time the will was
made. ['of sorts' because the purpose is to see that he doesn't spend
all of the money.]

Gjest

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2007 16:38:54

Joan wrote

Yes, children were usually named in the order of their birth in a will.
But, this >was not a will, it was a petition for an administration.

The children could have >been named in the order of their death as the
estates might have been set up in >that order. I have found that in
this time period in Northumberland, some >families had a child every
year, so the "typical" two year spacing wouldn't hold >true for many of
these families. Also, remember there was miscarriages and >stillbirths.
People did not live by a "typical" birth plan. This "typical" two
year spacing is something someone came up with and is not based on
documented fact. >Am I to assume that you think this "typical" two year

spacing is more important >that the birth entries in the St. Stephen's
Parish Register? Also, the Wicomico >Parish Birth Register is missing,
no where to be found, so many birth records for >this county are missing.

If you check administration records, which quite often are copied right
from the wills, you will find that they also usually name the children
in birth order. The clerk may have named the boys first then the girls
(which could mean that Hannah was not necessarily younger than the two
boys), but the children of the same sex were named in birth order.
Having gone through this not long ago with my own parents' probate, that
order is still followed to this day - children named in birth order.

But you're missing my point -- because the actual birth records aren't
around, and there don't seem to be any deeds or other records that name
Richard's wife in 1676 or before, you cannot say with certainty that she
was the mother of all his children. then we need to assume court clerks
followed tried-and-true procedures, when we re-construct events. And
that causes far too many "ifs".

Yes, some wills didn't name children in birth order. Yes, some
administration records didn't name children in birth order. But they
normally did, girls marrying at age 11 would have been rare. So,
Occam's Razor says you assume that "standard procedure" was followed
unless there is a reason not to do so. And once you do that, you must
conclude that Jane was not his first wife.

Really, what is so hard to accept about the fact that Richard might have
had a wife before Jane? So many of the records have been lost that I'm
not surprised that we don't know her name or their exact marriage date
or which children were hers and which were Jane's (since the mothers
were often not named in those early years).

I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.

That is why red flags should be waving about Jane Presley and Richard
Rogers, so their marriage can be examined more closely. Red flags don't
necessarily mean that a theory is wrong, they just call for closer
examination.

Richard himself was about that mean age when he married, since he was
born after 1654 (based on the fact that he didn't receive the same gifts
his siblings received a grandparent). So he was no older than 22 when
son John was born in December 1676.

But, Richard was *probably* the firstborn. John would have been
conceived about March 1675/6. Even figuring in that he was conceived
immediately after Richard's birth, that would mean Richard was conceived
about July 1675. Richard Sr. would have been no older than 21, still
within the norm for a VA groom at that time. But that would have made
Jane only 11 - definitely not the norm.

Since no hard evidence can be found, and because their ages deviated so
much from the average, you cannot say with certainty that she was his
only wife. In fact, the accepted method would be to say that she was
probably - not definitely - not his first wife and admit that more
research needs to be done. This is a perfectly acceptable genealogical
method, although I admit it is not satisfying to the researcher in all
of us, since we like to know all the names and dates. :-)

You had mentioned that you'd seen probate records for Richard's estate.
Can you share them? Also, have you seen any deeds or other documents
that would show when Richard had reached age 21?


Vickie Elam White

Gjest

Re: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2007 17:19:30

All,
I know this discussion falls outside the parameters of the medieval period and see below that Joan will no longer address the controversy, however, I include below a comment from Alice Algood and would also like to note that Jane was the grandaughter of Ursula Bysshe Thompson Mottrom Colclough, one of the wealthiest women in Northumberland who left an extensive will.
Pat

Joan wrote:
Now, for the proof that all of the Rogers children were Jane's. On May 20,
1703, Jane Presley Rogers Neale and her husband, Christopher Neale were
granted
administration of the estates of her three deceased children, Richard,
John
and Hannah Rogers, (Northumberland County, VA Order Book 1699-1713, page
249).
The son, William appears to have died at an earlier age as there is no
additional mention of him. There were three additional children of
Richard and Jane
Rogers: Elizabeth, Jane and Ellen, (Northumberland County Record Book
1718-1726, pages 234-236.)



THERE IS A GROSS ERROR HERE. THESE CHILDREN WERE NOT DECEASED. THE ESTATE
THAT THE NEALES WERE SETTLING WAS THE ESTATE OF THEIR DECEASED FATHER,
RICHARD ROGERS, AND THE ESTATE THEY HAD INHERITED FROM HIM. WILL SOMEONE
EXPLAIN RICHARD ROGER'S WILL WHICH NAMES ONLY THESE THREE CHILDREN? I AM
AWARE THAT CHARLES COCHRAN IN RUST OF VIRGINIA SUGGESTED THAT ELIZABETH
ROGERS, WHO MARRIED BENEDICT MIDDLETON AND ELEANOR, WHO MARRIED JOHN
MIDDLETON, WERE CHILDREN OF RICHARD ROGERS BUT PLEASE EXPLAIN AGAIN WHY THEY
ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE WILL.
THE ONLY BIRTH OF AN APPARENT CHILD OF JANE PRESLY ROGERS RECORDED IN ST.
STEPHENS WAS FOR JANE ROGERS BORN 12 APRIL 1686, WHO WAS NOT MENTIOINED IN
HER FATHER'S WILL, WHICH WOULD LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS DEAD..
WAS IT NOT ROBERT BANKS WHO RETURNED THE WILL OF RICHARD ROGERS ON 18 AUGUST
1697, WITH RICHARD'S WIFE, JANE, [NOT THOMAS BANKS]


John Rogers, son of Richard, born December 18, 1676
William Rogers, son of Richard, born February 12, 1679
Jane Rogers, daughter of Richard, born April 12, 1686.
THERE IS A SEVEN YEAR BREAK BETWEEN THE BIRTH OF WILLIAM AND JANE WHICH

WOULD INDICATE THAT THE FIRST WIFE, MOTHER OF JOHN AND WILLIAM, DIED AND
THEN HE MARRIED JANE PRESLY.


RICHARD ROGERS APPARENTLY HAD A BROTHER, JOHN ROGERS, JR., WHOSE WIFE, JOAN,
SETTLED HIS ESTATE IN NORHTUMBERLAND. ALEXANDER WAS HIS ELDEST CHILD. THIS
FAMILY HAD OTHERCHILDREN.

MANY TIMES GENEALOGISTS TRY TO FIT CHILDREN INTO A FAMILY THAT IS EASIEST
FOUND AND REQUIRES LESS RESEARCH. PRIMARY SOURCE RECORDS OFTEN DO NOT AGREE.
UNLESS THERE IS SOME DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT WHICH PROVES CHILDREN OF
RICHARD AND JANE PRESLY ROGERS, OTHER THE THE THREE MENTIONED IN THE WILL OF
RICHARD ROGERS, WE MUST ACCEPT THIS PRIMARY SOURCE RECORD WHICH DOES
CONFIRMS THEIR OFFSPRING.

ALICE ALGOOD



So, I will not longer be a part of this thread. I will not comment or
response in any matter to anything on this thread. I don't care what comments
are made. The comments are petty.

In addition, I would like to apologize to the members of this group for
my part in the discord of this thread. Also, I would like to thank the
members of this group that have E-mailed me privately with support and kind words.
I really appreciate it, thanks again.

Joan








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

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Early counts of Castile, Garcia III? (resent - first tim

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2007 19:51:02

In a message dated 7/16/2007 10:39:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wnabuurs@xs4all.nl writes:

I cannot find this person in any other book or site on the history of
Castile, nor in Genealogics.org. Does anybody in the group know if this
person really existed, and if so, in what way he could claim the title of
count of Castile?>>>
Did not exist.
And has been removed.





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

Yvonne Purdy

RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 16 jul 2007 20:10:48

Dear Vickie,

I'm very interested in this thread having one or two seemingly very young
brides in my family tree (from Cheshire, UK). You wrote:

I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,

even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.
<

On the a2a site, typing in the word Divorce in the keyword box, and for
Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service, brings up many
cases of 'divorce' because the children were under-age on marriage (some
very under-age). Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.

I would appreciate your views on this.

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy

Gjest

Re: Veteriponte family of Westmorland

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2007 20:34:21

I have corresponded with David and applaud his efforts to bring forward many of the Viponts who have been left out of many of the histories. I do have a question concerning the earliest Robert . We need more evidence and must be careful not to confuse the Norman Viponts and English and Scots Viponts--all related.
Thanks for the site information.
Pat
From: Tim Cartmell <inver1000@yahoo.ca
Date: 2007/07/14 Sat PM 09:32:26 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Veteriponte family of Westmorland

Dear SGM Listers,

For what its worth, I found a website about the Veteriponte family of Westmorland. It is an interesting read. Within the website you can then link to other Veteriponte families, specifically Alston Moor branch, etc.

http://www.vieuxpont.co.uk/id13.html


Timothy J. Cartmell


---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail
---------------------------------
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

WJhonson

Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 20:48:22

<<In a message dated 07/16/07 11:25:54 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0rym2P ... +thornhill >>


----------------------------
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... o_it=21416




London: - Marriage Licences, 1611-1828
Burials.
Marriage Licences Granted by the Bishop of London.
1624.

County: London
Country: England

01 May 1624 Jasper Clayton, of St Edmund's, Lombard Street, London, Mercer, Bachelor, & Mary Thompson, Spinster, dau. of [blank] Thompson, of St Catherine Creechurch, London, Joyner; at St Faith's, London.


Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av WJhonson » 16 jul 2007 23:15:42

<<In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time, von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study. >>

We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor boy did occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the point.

Will Johnson

taf

Re: Another later de Lara

Legg inn av taf » 17 jul 2007 01:09:25

On Jul 13, 4:37 am, maria emma escobar <memaesco...@yahoo.es> wrote:
In relation with Mayor (cognomento Gontrodo) Rodríguez, second wife of Pedro Froilaz de Traba, she was a daughter of Rodrigo Muñoz, conde of Asturias, and his wife Teresa:



Is this the same Count Rodrigo Muñoz who has been speculated to be
brother of royal mistress Jimena Muñoz?

Canal Sanchez Pagin made him son of Count Munio Gonzalez, in his
article on Jimena, (AEM 21:11-40 (1991)) but in a recent article on
Count Gomez Gonzalez, he has changed his mind, tracing them to Rodrigo
Romaniz, following Salazar Acha in Real Academia Matritense de
Heráldica y Genealogía ("Contribución al estudio del reinado de
Alfonso VI de Castilla: algunas aclaraciones sobre su política
matrimonial", which I have not seen).

taf

WJhonson

Re: CP correction? - Anne Morgan, wife of Henry Carey, Baron

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 jul 2007 03:44:10

Anne (Morgan) Carey is buried at St John Baptist's Chapel in Westminster
http://books.google.com/books?id=pDMEAA ... f+arkeston
next to her [only ?] husband Henry Carey Baron Hunsdon who had died in 1596

Perhaps this will is for her father? Says Thomas Morgan of Arkeston

http://books.google.com/books?id=JT8EAA ... f+arkeston


Burke says that Anne was dau of Jean, Sire de Merode ?

http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkX ... f+arkeston

Leo van de Pas

Re: Any male-line descents from English Royal Bastards?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 jul 2007 03:50:45

If you are looking for lines to the present, that it easy : Somerset ,
Fitzroy, Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Beauclerk families .
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "steven perkins" <scperkins@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Any male-line descents from English Royal Bastards?


Hello:

I am asking this from the perspective of Y chromosome DNA research.
Are there any direct line male descendants from any of the English
Royal Bastards? If so, who are they?

Thanks,

Steven C. Perkins
--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
Steven C. Perkins' Genealogy Page
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

WJhonson

Re: Any male-line descents from English Royal Bastards?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 jul 2007 04:58:05

This one Stephen
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 3&tree=LEO

Walter John Francis Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Baron Eskdaill
who was born 1984

not only is he a strictly-male-line-descendent from
Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1660 to 1685

but he also happens to be a descendent of
Richard Cecil in at least three different ways
(I haven't completely traced his lineage)

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: CP correction? - Anne Morgan, wife of Henry Carey, Baron

Legg inn av John Higgins » 17 jul 2007 06:11:48

Based on the date, the will that you cite is presumably for the Sir Thomas
Morgan of Arkeston who was the father of Lady Hunsdon. But this Sir Thomas
is not the one who married Anne de Merode.

The cited Burke's volume is his "Extinct and Dormant Peerages", not noted
for reliability. In this case, the CP article I cited mentions that Lady
Hunsdon's parentage has been "wrongly assigned" to Sir Thomas Morgan of
Fulham and his wife Anne de Merode, but discards this alternative based on
the heraldry appearing on Lady Hunsdon's monument. More tellingly, a
detailed pedigree of the Merode family in vol. 18 of Schwennicke's ESNF says
that Anne de Merode was born 1565 and died 1634 - clearly impossible for her
to be mother of Lady Hunsdon, who was likely born about 40 years before Anne
de Merode. The first husband of Anne de Merode is noted in ESNF as Sir
Thomas Morgan of Fulham, governor of Bergen op Zoom, who d. 1595 - 6 years
after their marriage and 50 years after the marriage of Lady Hunsdon.


----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: CP correction? - Anne Morgan, wife of Henry Carey, Baron
Hunsdon


Anne (Morgan) Carey is buried at St John Baptist's Chapel in Westminster

http://books.google.com/books?id=pDMEAA ... f+arkeston
next to her [only ?] husband Henry Carey Baron Hunsdon who had died in
1596

Perhaps this will is for her father? Says Thomas Morgan of Arkeston


http://books.google.com/books?id=JT8EAA ... an+of+arke

ston

Burke says that Anne was dau of Jean, Sire de Merode ?


http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkX ... f+arkeston

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Volucris

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Volucris » 17 jul 2007 14:34:26

On 16 jul, 04:05, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 07/15/07 18:50:31 Pacific Standard Time, dantemor...@gmail.com writes:
dear list,

can anyone tell me, in the early 16th century Herefordshire Acts of Office,
what is meant by a charge of "incontinence" between two individuals?

Pre-marital or extra-martial sexual relations.

Will Johnson

A suggestive word 'incontinence' ;-)

Hans Vogels

Dantemortem

Fwd: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 17 jul 2007 15:25:44

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dantemortem <dantemortem@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Acts of Office, terminology
To: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>

The charges seem to be either incest, adultery, fornication or incontinence,
and I don't understand the difference between the last two.

dm

On 7/15/07, WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 07/15/07 18:50:31 Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:
dear list,

can anyone tell me, in the early 16th century Herefordshire Acts of
Office,
what is meant by a charge of "incontinence" between two individuals?

Pre-marital or extra-martial sexual relations.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2007 18:20:03

In a message dated 7/17/2007 7:26:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:

The charges seem to be either incest, adultery, fornication or incontinence,
and I don't understand the difference between the last two.>>
Maybe you could quote exactly what the passage states.
Will





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

Dantemortem

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 17 jul 2007 18:42:45

sorry, good idea, samples pasted below

1479 Roger A Rode of Titteley for adultery with Isabel of
the same

1502 3 Oct. John Roode of Prestende for fornication with Elen Bedo of
Almeley

1508 9 May. Roger Sheperde servant of Alice Rode of the same for adultery
with Johan Hopyar

1524 Sir John a Rode of Eryslond incontinence with Johan Taylor widow

1530 John a Rode of Prestene for incest with Maud Browne in the 2nd and
3rd degrees of affinity

1566 Sir John a Rode vicar of Prestene incontinence with Johan Goughe of
same

1575 Thomas Legge of Prestene for fornication with Elizabeth Rode of
Bosefforde


On 7/17/07, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 7/17/2007 7:26:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes:

The charges seem to be either incest, adultery, fornication or
incontinence,
and I don't understand the difference between the last two.

Maybe you could quote exactly what the passage states.
Will




------------------------------
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
.

WJhonson

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 jul 2007 20:48:06

I would *suggest* in this context that adultery and fornication were *shall we say* full acts of intercourse, whereas "incontinence" might be something short of that.

Will Johnson



In a message dated 07/17/07 10:43:02 Pacific Standard Time, dantemortem@gmail.com writes:
sorry, good idea, samples pasted below


1479 Roger A Rode of Titteley for adultery with Isabel of the same
1502 3 Oct. John Roode of Prestende for fornication with Elen Bedo of Almeley
1508 9 May. Roger Sheperde servant of Alice Rode of the same for adultery with Johan Hopyar
1524 Sir John a Rode of Eryslond incontinence with Johan Taylor widow
1530 John a Rode of Prestene for incest with Maud Browne in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of affinity
1566 Sir John a Rode vicar of Prestene incontinence with Johan Goughe of same
1575 Thomas Legge of Prestene for fornication with Elizabeth Rode of Bosefforde



On 7/17/07, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 7/17/2007 7:26:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dantemortem@gmail.com writes:
The charges seem to be either incest, adultery, fornication or incontinence,
and I don't understand the difference between the last two.>>
Maybe you could quote exactly what the passage states.
Will







Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

Yvonne Purdy

RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 17 jul 2007 21:33:53

<<In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study. >>
<<<
We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor boy did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the point.

Will Johnson
<<<
Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:

I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,

even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.
<

I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were animals of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of consent for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753, helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake. Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy

Gjest

Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 40(Chancery Proc. Bridges

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2007 21:46:04

John Brandon posted the following in his series of "Clues from
Lists-Indexes":-
Chancery Proc. Vol 40 p. 42- thanks, John.

--Duppa, William, and Katherine his wife
--Whittney, John and Eleanor his wife
--1649; Glascwm, Radnorshire; personal estate of Edward ap John

Glascwm is about 15 miles West of Pembridge, where Bishop Brian Duppa (who
died in 1662) and his father Jeffrey founded an almshouse which still exists.
It is even closer to Michaelchurch on Arrow, where lived a William Duppa, in
relation to whom administration was granted at Hereford in 1676. I had not so
far traced any Duppas at Glascwm before the 18th century. Nor had I
previously found any reference to this William, husband of Katherine.
I am engaged on a continuing project to unravel the genealogy of these
Duppas, who feature extensively (under various spellings including "Twppa" ,"Twpa"
etc) in the Welsh Archives at Aberystwyth, as well as in the English
national archives, and whose name survives in numerous place names in the March of
Wales.
Three members of the family were pardoned, by William Lord Herbert, as
justice of North and South Wales, after the fall of Harlech Castle to the Yorkists
in 1468. Lord Herbert is reported as having captured the castle in that
year. Did the Duppas perhaps betray the castle? See llgc Peniarth papers, C41.

Later Duppas had a connection by marriage with the Whitney family, from
which the present day Duppas of Hollingbourne in Kent derive their descent.

On the whole the family has succeeded in remaining obscure and
undistinguished, apart from the Bishop himself, his kinsman Sir Thomas, Black Rod (both of
whom have monuments in Westminster Abbey), and a momentary flowering in the
person of Richard Duppa FSA, the historian, genealogist and antiquary, d.1831.
I have so far traced this Richard's ancestry no further back than his
great-grandfather William Duppa, who lived at Wistanstow, Salop, and had a wife
Priscilla: see W.G.D.Fletcher's edition of the Wistanstow parish register.

The Bishop's brother James did achieve a measure of notoriety, as a brewer
to the courts of Charles I and Charles II. As early as 1613 he was blamed, as
the brewer of "Duppa's stinking beer", for the sickness which afflicted the
relief expedition of that year which went to reinforce Jamestown, Virginia.

I would be interested to hear theories as to the origin of this unusual
name. It seems to rank with Herbert, Whitney, Cecil, de la Pole and Tudor, as one
of the first family names to be found in medieval Wales. I wonder whether it
may derive from the influx of Flemish mercenaries into Wales?

For heralds, the arms borne by the family appear to be Azure, a lion's fess
erased between two chains or,
in a canton a Tudor rose
MM

WJhonson

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 jul 2007 21:47:31

<<In a message dated 07/17/07 13:30:07 Pacific Standard Time, von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband? >>
If you're implying "age of consent for sex" I think that's a mistaken reading.
The passage is referring to age of consenting to a marriage, even one previously contracted.

Not the same as "the age at which our parents or guardians let us have sex"

Will Johnson

Ian Goddard

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 17 jul 2007 22:51:39

WJhonson wrote:

I would *suggest* in this context that adultery and fornication were
*shall we say* full acts of intercourse, whereas "incontinence" might be
something short of that.

Will Johnson



In a message dated 07/17/07 10:43:02 Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes: sorry, good idea, samples pasted below


1479 Roger A Rode of Titteley for adultery with Isabel of
the same
1502 3 Oct. John Roode of Prestende for fornication with Elen Bedo of
Almeley
1508 9 May. Roger Sheperde servant of Alice Rode of the same for
adultery with Johan Hopyar
1524 Sir John a Rode of Eryslond incontinence with Johan Taylor widow
1530 John a Rode of Prestene for incest with Maud Browne in the 2nd
and 3rd degrees of affinity
1566 Sir John a Rode vicar of Prestene incontinence with Johan Goughe
of same
1575 Thomas Legge of Prestene for fornication with Elizabeth Rode of
Bosefforde


Note that the charge of incontinence was against Sir John a Rode *vicar*
(assuming it's the same one 40+ years apart). Presumably he should have
been celibate and I think "incontinence" refers to breaking this rule.
Where he's being charged with incest this is probably a case of the more
serious charge being preferred in this case.
--
Ian Goddard

Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk

Vickie Elam White

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 18 jul 2007 00:36:47

Yvonne,

Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.

Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.


Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk>
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.

We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the point.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:


I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.


I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were animals of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake. Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy







-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Alan Grey

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 18 jul 2007 00:42:31

Dantemortem wrote:
sorry, good idea, samples pasted below

1479 Roger A Rode of Titteley for adultery with Isabel of
the same

1502 3 Oct. John Roode of Prestende for fornication with Elen Bedo of
Almeley

1508 9 May. Roger Sheperde servant of Alice Rode of the same for adultery
with Johan Hopyar

1524 Sir John a Rode of Eryslond incontinence with Johan Taylor widow

1530 John a Rode of Prestene for incest with Maud Browne in the 2nd and
3rd degrees of affinity

1566 Sir John a Rode vicar of Prestene incontinence with Johan Goughe of
same


In general terms, incontinence means a lack of self-restraint, and in
that sense the word can be used in relation to all sorts of human
behaviours or bodily functions. Today it tends to be used mostly in the
bodily function sense, but it also can be used to denote "unbridled"
sexual activity or appetite. I suggest, therefore, that as an
accusation (e.g., in the examples above) it is harsher than fornication,
which could be a one-off incident. It may also imply more flaunted and
egregious activity.

Alan R Grey

John Higgins

Re: A royal line for Monkees

Legg inn av John Higgins » 18 jul 2007 01:54:10

I think this line was discussed before in Gen-Med/SGM, and some reservations
were noted, particularly as to proof that the John Awbrey in Virginia was in
fact the son [or grandson} of Sir William Awbrey. It's worth noting that
the line is NOT included in the latest published compilations of gateway
ancestors of royal descent, although the line has definitley been bubbling
around for several years - probably some continuing doubt, or lack of proof?

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:26 PM
Subject: A royal line for Monkees


Thanks to the work of sometime-contributor to this list Janet Ariciu on
the family Monkres, Muncus, Munkers, I've added another tentative connection

from myself to Edward III, King of England.
Janet's work is here :
http://www.geocities.com/janet_ariciu/W ... resSR.html

The line (in part) goes as follows:
John P Blanton 1862-99 m Mary Charlotte Lindgren
John W Blanton 1833-1916 m Catherine Shepherd
Joseph Blanton d by 1849 "age 39" m Jane Munkers b 1811
William Muncus d 1856 m Rebecca Pendleton
Philip Pendleton 1741-1811 m Martha Awbrey
Chandler Awbrey d 1755 m Elizabeth Sorrell
John Awbrey d 1726/7 in Westmoreland Co, VA m Hannah Tanner
John Awbrey 1623-92 m Jane Johnstone
William Awbrey d 1631 m Elizabeth Johns b 24 Dec 1595
Thomas John m Jane Puleston
Henry Johns m Elizabeth Herbert
Matthew Herbert m Mary Gamage
George Herbert m Elizabeth Berkeley
Her father is called both Edward and Thomas Berkeley, he m Elizabeth
Neville
George Neville, 2nd Baron Burgavenny d 20 Sep 1492 m Margaret Fiennes d 28
Sep 1485
Edward Neville, 1st Baron Abergavenny d 18 Oct 1476 m Elizabeth de
Beauchamp, Heiress of Abergavenny d 18 Jun 1448
Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland (cr 1395) d 21 Oct 1425 m Jane
(Joan) Beauford, Baroness Neville, Countess of Westmoreland d 13 Nov 1440
John "of Gaunt" 1st Duke of Lancaster b 24 Jun 1340 m Catherine Roet
Edward III

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dantemortem

Re: Acts of Office, terminology

Legg inn av Dantemortem » 18 jul 2007 02:04:46

I rather think they are not the same person, as the place names are
different. The name was very common in this general area.

The incest charges reflect the more stringent laws. One case, in which the
relationships are spelled out (though not specifically labelled as incest,
but in which the closeness of kinship is the only problem), has a woman
marrying a man who was second cousin to her first husband.

dm

On 7/17/07, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
WJhonson wrote:

I would *suggest* in this context that adultery and fornication were
*shall we say* full acts of intercourse, whereas "incontinence" might be
something short of that.

Will Johnson



In a message dated 07/17/07 10:43:02 Pacific Standard Time,
dantemortem@gmail.com writes: sorry, good idea, samples pasted below


1479 Roger A Rode of Titteley for adultery with Isabel
of
the same
1502 3 Oct. John Roode of Prestende for fornication with Elen Bedo
of
Almeley
1508 9 May. Roger Sheperde servant of Alice Rode of the same for
adultery with Johan Hopyar
1524 Sir John a Rode of Eryslond incontinence with Johan Taylor
widow
1530 John a Rode of Prestene for incest with Maud Browne in the 2nd
and 3rd degrees of affinity
1566 Sir John a Rode vicar of Prestene incontinence with Johan Goughe
of same
1575 Thomas Legge of Prestene for fornication with Elizabeth Rode of
Bosefforde


Note that the charge of incontinence was against Sir John a Rode *vicar*
(assuming it's the same one 40+ years apart). Presumably he should have
been celibate and I think "incontinence" refers to breaking this rule.
Where he's being charged with incest this is probably a case of the more
serious charge being preferred in this case.
--
Ian Goddard

Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yvonne Purdy

RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 18 jul 2007 11:51:26

Vickie,

Thank you for your reply. I should have explained that Antonia Fraser's
book, "The Weaker Vessel" is a study of "Woman's Lot in Seventeenth-century
England", and is very interesting in the details she provides of all aspects
of a woman's life then.

What was the law relating to age of marriage in colonial America through the
1600s? I thought it might have been similar to English law, but maybe not?

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy
From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]

Sent: 18 July 2007 00:37
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.

Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.

Vickie Elam White
<<
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk>
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.

We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the point.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:


I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.


I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were animals of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake. Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy







-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Chris Dickinson

Re: Any male-line descents from English Royal Bastards?

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 18 jul 2007 13:58:56

Will Johnson wrote:


Walter John Francis Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Baron Eskdaill
who was born 1984


Out of curiosity, is 'Baron' right? Wouldn't it be more correct to describe
him as 'Lord Eskdaill'?

Chris

Vickie Elam White

Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 18 jul 2007 15:03:32

Yvonne,

I have never said that the marriage of a 12 yr. old would not be allowed, I
said that it would have been unusual, if not downright rare, in VA in the
1680s. Since I believe that Richard Rogers married before 1675 (based on my
belief that his son Richard was older than his son John, who was b. in
December 1676) -- when Jane Presley would have just turned 11 -- I think he
must have married someone else first. What I mean by not comparing
different eras and countries is that, while something may technically be
allowed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is common practice.

I do know that, in 1688 in Stafford Co. VA, Rev. John Waugh was brought
before the court for marrying underage girls - Mary Hathaway was only 9 yrs
old when he performed her marriage to William Williams. So, 9 was not
allowed. Age 12 was probably the minimum age allowed, and I'll keep
checking to see if I can find specific mention.

Anyway, I checked Hening's Statutes at Large to see what the VA laws were at
that time. Interestingly, actual ages at marriage weren't mentioned until
Volume 3:151-152 (1684-1710), so it doesn't cover the period when Richard
Rogers first married. The previous 2 volumes mentioned only that licenses
and publishment of banns were required, not any ages. Vol. 3 says -

" And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That if the clerk of any county court doe grant any certificate or
certificates to any person or persons for any lycence or lycences for any
marriage or marriages without the personall consent of the parent or
guardian or signified under the hands and seales of the said guardian or
parent and attested by two witnesses or if any person or persons doe grant
any lycence or lycenses for any marriage or marriages without such
certificate or certificates, he or they soe offending shall for every such
offence forfeit and pay the sume of five hundred pounds current money, to be
recovered and divided as aforesaid, and be imprisoned the space of one whole
yeare, without bayle or mainprise.

And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That
if any woeman child or maiden being above the age of twelve and under the
age of sixteen years doe att any time consent or agree to such person, that
so shall make any contract of matrimony without the consent of the parent or
guardian or without the publication of the banes as aforesaid, that then the
next of kin to the said woman, child or maid to whome the inheritance should
descend, fall or come after the death of the said woman, child or maiden,
shall from the time of such agreement and assent hold, have and enjoy all
such lands, tenements and hereditaments as the said woman, child or maiden
had in possession, reversion or remainder att the time of such assent and
agreement and dureing such coverture and after the decease of the husband of
the said woman, child or maiden haveing so contracted matrimony that then
the said lands, tenements and hereditaments shall descend revert and remain
to such woman, child or maiden, or such person or persons as they should
have done in case this act had never been made."


Vickie Elam White


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk>
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
<wjhonson@aol.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Vickie,

Thank you for your reply. I should have explained that Antonia Fraser's
book, "The Weaker Vessel" is a study of "Woman's Lot in
Seventeenth-century
England", and is very interesting in the details she provides of all
aspects
of a woman's life then.

What was the law relating to age of marriage in colonial America through
the
1600s? I thought it might have been similar to English law, but maybe
not?

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy

From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 00:37
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.

Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.

Vickie Elam White

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.

We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the point.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:


I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.


I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the
rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were animals
of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily
nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the
marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride
was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of
consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake.
Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy







-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


WJhonson

Re: Thomas Whitney buried 1637

Legg inn av WJhonson » 18 jul 2007 19:57:51

This appears to be a fairly good write-up in wiki style of this guy, etc.

Will Johnson

Yvonne Purdy

RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 18 jul 2007 22:31:11

Vickie,

Very many thanks for taking the time and trouble to reply, with such
interesting details.
I would be delighted to hear if you do manage to find a specific age at
marriage mention.

It makes strange reading, in our time, that 9 year olds were being married
off.

I have a direct ancestress, baptised 25 December 1610, married on 8 March
1622/23, so 12 years old. Her husband was slightly older at not quite 15,
but at least their first recorded child was not baptised until 14 March
1626/27. I think that Will is quite correct that they weren't allowed to
live together as man and wife until they were older, although I do wonder
whether all parents/guardians took such care if great wealth or good
connections were at stake.

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy
From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]

Sent: 18 July 2007 15:04
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

I have never said that the marriage of a 12 yr. old would not be allowed, I
said that it would have been unusual, if not downright rare, in VA in the
1680s. Since I believe that Richard Rogers married before 1675 (based on my
belief that his son Richard was older than his son John, who was b. in
December 1676) -- when Jane Presley would have just turned 11 -- I think he
must have married someone else first. What I mean by not comparing
different eras and countries is that, while something may technically be
allowed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is common practice.

I do know that, in 1688 in Stafford Co. VA, Rev. John Waugh was brought
before the court for marrying underage girls - Mary Hathaway was only 9 yrs
old when he performed her marriage to William Williams. So, 9 was not
allowed. Age 12 was probably the minimum age allowed, and I'll keep
checking to see if I can find specific mention.

Anyway, I checked Hening's Statutes at Large to see what the VA laws were at
that time. Interestingly, actual ages at marriage weren't mentioned until
Volume 3:151-152 (1684-1710), so it doesn't cover the period when Richard
Rogers first married. The previous 2 volumes mentioned only that licenses
and publishment of banns were required, not any ages. Vol. 3 says -

" And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That if the clerk of any county court doe grant any certificate or
certificates to any person or persons for any lycence or lycences for any
marriage or marriages without the personall consent of the parent or
guardian or signified under the hands and seales of the said guardian or
parent and attested by two witnesses or if any person or persons doe grant
any lycence or lycenses for any marriage or marriages without such
certificate or certificates, he or they soe offending shall for every such
offence forfeit and pay the sume of five hundred pounds current money, to be
recovered and divided as aforesaid, and be imprisoned the space of one whole
yeare, without bayle or mainprise.

And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That
if any woeman child or maiden being above the age of twelve and under the
age of sixteen years doe att any time consent or agree to such person, that
so shall make any contract of matrimony without the consent of the parent or
guardian or without the publication of the banes as aforesaid, that then the
next of kin to the said woman, child or maid to whome the inheritance should
descend, fall or come after the death of the said woman, child or maiden,
shall from the time of such agreement and assent hold, have and enjoy all
such lands, tenements and hereditaments as the said woman, child or maiden
had in possession, reversion or remainder att the time of such assent and
agreement and dureing such coverture and after the decease of the husband of
the said woman, child or maiden haveing so contracted matrimony that then
the said lands, tenements and hereditaments shall descend revert and remain
to such woman, child or maiden, or such person or persons as they should
have done in case this act had never been made."


Vickie Elam White
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk

To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
<wjhonson@aol.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Vickie,

Thank you for your reply. I should have explained that Antonia Fraser's
book, "The Weaker Vessel" is a study of "Woman's Lot in
Seventeenth-century
England", and is very interesting in the details she provides of all
aspects
of a woman's life then.

What was the law relating to age of marriage in colonial America through
the
1600s? I thought it might have been similar to English law, but maybe
not?

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy

From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 00:37
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.

Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.

Vickie Elam White

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.

We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the point.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:


I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18 almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.


I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the
rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were animals
of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily
nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the
marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride
was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of
consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake.
Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy







-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


Vickie Elam White

Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 19 jul 2007 01:11:05

Yvonne,

Well, I was looking into the Mary Hathaway-William Williams annulment
proceedings today. I got so involved that I actually ordered a book that
included this case, and it looks fascinating -- __ By Birth or Consent:
Children, Law and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority __ by Holly
Brewer. I'm easily sidetracked! This book says that Mary's annulment
petition was based on her being underage (and coerced by her mother and
others). It further states that the marriage wasn't consummated, and that,
if it had been consummated, it would have been an abomination or abhorrent
or something similar (can't remember the exact phrase used). And the fact
that it hadn't been consummated and that she could afford to hire a good
lawyer is why the annulment was granted.

But, it turns out I *may* have to eat my words and admit that Joan Burdyck
was right that Jane Presley might have married at age 12 or even 11.
Supposedly, one of the attorneys in Mary Hathaway's case -- William
FitzHugh -- married 10-yr. old Sarah Tucker in 1674. And she had 5 children
by 1684, so they may have consummated their marriage right away. And, in
1692, William FitzHugh's 15 yr. old son William married Ann Lee who was only
about 9! I haven't had time to check out when William and Ann's children
were born, so I don't know yet if they waited until she was 12. 12 seemed
to be the magic age for consummation because the court records called it the
"age of reason" but maybe if you were wealthy enough you got away with
consummating it? The book says that Mary Hathaway's request for annulment
was rare enough that she had to go to great legal lengths to obtain it but
that her young age at marriage didn't seem to be all that unusual. I don't
want to go by just one book, so I'll keep looking.


Vickie Elam White



----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk>
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
<wjhonson@aol.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Vickie,

Very many thanks for taking the time and trouble to reply, with such
interesting details.
I would be delighted to hear if you do manage to find a specific age at
marriage mention.

It makes strange reading, in our time, that 9 year olds were being married
off.

I have a direct ancestress, baptised 25 December 1610, married on 8 March
1622/23, so 12 years old. Her husband was slightly older at not quite 15,
but at least their first recorded child was not baptised until 14 March
1626/27. I think that Will is quite correct that they weren't allowed to
live together as man and wife until they were older, although I do wonder
whether all parents/guardians took such care if great wealth or good
connections were at stake.

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy

From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 15:04
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

I have never said that the marriage of a 12 yr. old would not be allowed,
I
said that it would have been unusual, if not downright rare, in VA in the
1680s. Since I believe that Richard Rogers married before 1675 (based on
my
belief that his son Richard was older than his son John, who was b. in
December 1676) -- when Jane Presley would have just turned 11 -- I think
he
must have married someone else first. What I mean by not comparing
different eras and countries is that, while something may technically be
allowed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is common practice.

I do know that, in 1688 in Stafford Co. VA, Rev. John Waugh was brought
before the court for marrying underage girls - Mary Hathaway was only 9
yrs
old when he performed her marriage to William Williams. So, 9 was not
allowed. Age 12 was probably the minimum age allowed, and I'll keep
checking to see if I can find specific mention.

Anyway, I checked Hening's Statutes at Large to see what the VA laws were
at
that time. Interestingly, actual ages at marriage weren't mentioned until
Volume 3:151-152 (1684-1710), so it doesn't cover the period when Richard
Rogers first married. The previous 2 volumes mentioned only that licenses
and publishment of banns were required, not any ages. Vol. 3 says -

" And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That if the clerk of any county court doe grant any certificate or
certificates to any person or persons for any lycence or lycences for any
marriage or marriages without the personall consent of the parent or
guardian or signified under the hands and seales of the said guardian or
parent and attested by two witnesses or if any person or persons doe grant
any lycence or lycenses for any marriage or marriages without such
certificate or certificates, he or they soe offending shall for every such
offence forfeit and pay the sume of five hundred pounds current money, to
be
recovered and divided as aforesaid, and be imprisoned the space of one
whole
yeare, without bayle or mainprise.

And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That
if any woeman child or maiden being above the age of twelve and under the
age of sixteen years doe att any time consent or agree to such person,
that
so shall make any contract of matrimony without the consent of the parent
or
guardian or without the publication of the banes as aforesaid, that then
the
next of kin to the said woman, child or maid to whome the inheritance
should
descend, fall or come after the death of the said woman, child or maiden,
shall from the time of such agreement and assent hold, have and enjoy all
such lands, tenements and hereditaments as the said woman, child or maiden
had in possession, reversion or remainder att the time of such assent and
agreement and dureing such coverture and after the decease of the husband
of
the said woman, child or maiden haveing so contracted matrimony that then
the said lands, tenements and hereditaments shall descend revert and
remain
to such woman, child or maiden, or such person or persons as they should
have done in case this act had never been made."


Vickie Elam White

From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Vickie,

Thank you for your reply. I should have explained that Antonia Fraser's
book, "The Weaker Vessel" is a study of "Woman's Lot in
Seventeenth-century
England", and is very interesting in the details she provides of all
aspects
of a woman's life then.

What was the law relating to age of marriage in colonial America through
the
1600s? I thought it might have been similar to English law, but maybe
not?

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy

From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 00:37
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the
girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.

Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.

Vickie Elam White

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.


We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor
boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the
point.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:


I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18
almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for
brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used
many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.


I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the
rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were
animals
of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily
nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of
consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe
years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the
marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride
was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of
consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake.
Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from
a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy







-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




WJhonson

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jul 2007 01:34:29

Vickie keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Just because someone *says* that a certain *mother* had five children before she was say 16 doesn't make it true. I know you can slice that hair.

And remember as well that we already know that marriages were contracted and the bride and groom were even referred to as married and as mr and mrs and so-on at early ages.

I seem to recall something like that in the case of Mary Queen of Scots. You do remember that she was sent to be brought up *in* the court of France. That's one reason why she was looked upon with a bit of suspicion when she returned after her young husband died... and the fact that she was firmly Catholic.

And as well the issue in THIS Jane Presley case isn't that she was married at 12
It's that she was impregnated just after her 11th birthday.
That is so far beyond reason that it requires the strictest form of proof, which we haven't seen as of yet.

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»