re-visiting one of my assumptions

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
marshall kirk

re-visiting one of my assumptions

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 28 sep 2004 22:54:00

This is a request for opinions -- the more well-informed, the better,
naturally -- regarding a tentative assumption expressed in one of my
articles of several years ago, about which I've begun to feel a good
deal of doubt.

In that article, I noted that a Kenelm Winslow was thrice referred to
in a very detailed list, dated 1562, of abutters of a great many odd
lots of land owned in the hamlet of Clifton in Severnstoke by the
churchwardens of St. Michael's of Bedwardine (in, IIRC, the city of
Worcester). In each case, the reference is to "the land of Kenelm
Winslow." In 1605, a Kenelm Winslow -- then nearing death -- of the
city of Worcester deposed in a case involving Cliftons and Somerses
.... the surnames of very near neighbors of the Kenelm Winslow at
Severnstoke in 1562. (Other deponents are Winslows whose baptisms are
on record in Severnstoke from 1548 to 1560.)

Now, there are several good reasons, tho' I won't go into them here,
to identify the Kenelm Winslow of Severnstoke in 1562 and the Kenelm
Winslow of the city of Worcester in 1605. The one obstacle is
chronological: the latter KW's age is recorded as "ffiftie fower,"
which would put his birth ~1551; if that age is right (not certain, of
course), and the two records reference one man, then the KW of 1562
was only 11 years old when others repeatedly referred to "the land of
Kenelm Winslow."

In my article, I expressed doubt that an 11-year-old boy would be
written down as the landholder of record in the said churchwardens'
account. However, I've begun to question this assumption. The
inventory is lengthy, complex, and detailed, and I find myself
suspecting that somebody had to visit Clifton to make up an accurate
list, and could well have been informed by locals of the boy's name.
Under those circumstances, *might* an 11-year-old boy (whose father,
let us say, was dead) have been referred to as the holder of the lands
into which he'd later enter? Or is this absurd? Would the expected
form have been something like, "the land formerly held by _____
Winslow," or some reference to interim guardians? I'd appreciate the
views of experienced researchers on this matter.

Incidentally, the Severnstoke parish register makes no mention of the
man (or boy), whose primary residence was apparently just across the
Severn at Kerswell in Kempsey.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»