View Full Version : Land and copyhold and stuff
link to this thread added to Wm M on BK6
I've just been looking at this:
http://blars.adlibsoft.com/wwwopac.exe?DATABASE=catalo>items&LANGUAGE=0&DEBUG=0&BRIEFADAPL=../web/adapls/wwwreq&DETAILADAPL=../web/adapls/wwwreq&%250=400041927&LIMIT=50
My interest is in the Maynard Family.
I keep reading the above transcribed doc but it goes in one ear (eye?!) and out the other without anything happening inbetween :o:o.
Towards the end it mentions Nathan Maynard and his father William. Which of those two dates is the date of death of William? Neither of them make any sense to me.
Please could someone explain in simple terms what this doc is about?
Sorry, that link does work if you copy and paste it, don't know why it won't hyperlink :(
Strewth!
It reads (to me) that the death of the father was in 1802, but then what is the 1776 all about?
What does the word "admitted" mean in this context? I mean, it is different to the normal "owned up to" sort of admitted?
William owned some land that was copyhold to an owner (often the Lord of the Manor). When copyholders die the land is "surrendered" back to the Manor but their heirs can inherit the land for a fee paid and are thus admitted to the land.
William died prior to 20 Oct 1776 which was the date when Nathan was admitted.
Is that what you wanted?
....
(on surr
of Nath Maynard who was admitted
20 Oct 1776 on death of his father
Wm Maynard 13 Oct. 1802 ...
Father's death was 1776 then, it has to be ... not sure what the 1802 means
That's when the land commissioners stuck their oars in.
Olde Crone
22-02-10, 10:19
I'm wondering if those two dates have been transposed, although as you say, neither date makes sense!
Basically, the document is setting out who has an interest in this land - the owner, the occupiers, the mortgagers, the mortgagees, the copyholders.
I am childishly amused that they were Barratts, no prizesfor guessing what they did with the land!
OC
*Glares at OC*.
Gwynne, if you think Wm died some time before that first date, then that would be possible, but it was some years before.......
William Maynard died between 13th May 1765 (when he wrote his will) and 27th Feb 1766 (when the will was proved).
Eldest son, Nathan, was probably born about 1742 and died in 1822. He ended up as an ag lab whilst William was a yeoman farmer in the will.
William has no burial, marriage or baptism that I can find (the only appearence he makes is to write his will). None of his children appear to have been baptised and whilst I know roughly when his wife (name not known) died, I don't have a burial, or possible burial, for her either.
I have been looking at this family (rather blankly, it has to be said) for 20 years and haven't progressed backwards one jot so far!
Ten years is a long time, maybe it's a mistranscription?
Oakum Picker
22-02-10, 11:16
I read it that Nathan was admitted to the land in 1776 & surrendered his right to it in 1802 which is probably why he ended up as an Ag. Lab.
I don't know about this area in particular but it was about this time that Enclosure was happening & many small farmers could not afford the cost so surrendered their land.
That makes some sense, Glen.
I also wondered if the year was wrong. I presume Nathan woud have been admitted to the land after his father's will was proved? So could be ten years adrift and shoud be 1766? I can see a flattened 6 being read as a 7!
I just looked at William's will. He doesn't specify the names of any of his lands or buildings, but they all go to Nathan. The other sons (3 of them) get either £100 or £200 each.
As Nathan was admitted on the death of his father, it would be worth trying to obtain a copy of that document you have found the abstract of, to check the dates and also to see whether any manorial records survive. Not only William & Nathan, but possibly their ancestors too, would be mentioned.
c 1800 is when all my ancestors slide straight down the social scale.
Very interesting, Phoenix. I will investigate!
Given that I wanted that date to be 1766 and not 1776, I wonder if there's any significance in the dates in the last bit of the summary:
(Schedule of Deeds 1766 -1814 on
bottom of last sheet)
Uncle John
22-02-10, 20:56
I don't know about this area in particular but it was about this time that Enclosure was happening & many small farmers could not afford the cost so surrendered their land.
The references to Woburn Road and Postley Field suggest to me that the land is now part of the Woburn Road industrial estate at the southern extremity of Kempston. It has a Postley Road.
Olde Crone
22-02-10, 22:11
I am not au fait with land transactions in counties other than Lancashire, but in Lancashire, copyhold tenancies could pass for three lives, usually father - son - grandson, but not necessarily so.
Also, one of the lifers didn't actually have to die for the next lifer to take over. Again, that would be unusual, but it did sometimes happen, with the agreement of the manor Lord or Court. Straightforward, honest, copyholders would be anxious to maximize the three lives tenancies and would only pass tenancies at death.
Most of my copyholders were concealing their lands from the Crown anyway, so their transactions were miracles of confusion. Deliberately so.
OC
That's interesting OC
I read it that Nathan was admitted to the land in 1776 & surrendered his right to it in 1802 which is probably why he ended up as an Ag. Lab.
I have now found this (on TNA site) all held at Beds Archives:
Conveyance (Feoffment), for £52 BC236 14 Aug. 1802
Contents:
(i) Nathan Maynard, labourer (eldest son & devisee of Wm. M., husbandman, both of Kempston, (ii) Daniel Hipwell (sole exor. & residuary legatee of Thos. H), both matmakers of Pavenham; & (iii) Rich. Bass of Wootton, yeoman. 1½ ac. in March Field in Kempston, adjg. to Potty Cross, abutting on highway from Wootton to Kempston N.W., the leys of late John Cater, S.W. & N.E. (formerly in occ. of Rich. Wallis, late of N.M. & now of R.B.) Witn: Tho. Kidman (of Bedford) & Charles Mardling (of Kempston). (Recites Mortgage, 1792, of Nathan Maynard to Thos. Hipwell, & Covenant to levy a Fine 1800 to Ben. Palmer).
Translation of above would be helpful!
And some other thing here regarding Nathan's father, William Maynard:
John Bromsall & Wm. Maynard v. Thos.Perkins alias Parkins & wife Eliz., & John Wortley. BC411 1757
Contents:
2 messuages, 2 cottages, 5 ac.arable & 4 ac.pasture in Kempston & Sandy.
Lastly (no it isn't! - maybe Nextly lol), I know I've asked this before, but don't seem to remember the answer :o - what is 'pre-nuptial incontinency'? Another Maynard was found guilty of this, along with several other people, in 1642. In the same list were listed those guilty of adultery and of non-payment of various church fines.
Lastly (!!) what does 'omnia bene' mean please?
Phoenix, I've asked Beds archive for a quote for giving me a copy of the original document and if it's not too much I might get the first two in this post as well.
Reply from Beds Archives states (in part) regarding the doc detailed in my original post:
This document is in two parts, both heavily folded parchment. It will be possible to copy the Lease part for you, but the Release is three large sheets of parchment stitched along one edge and to try and copy it may cause damage, so we cannot do this.
So, do I want the lease without the release? This is all double-dutch to me! lol (it's only £5 so that's not an issue)
What you want is a guide to land transactions. Federation of FFHS used to publish a neat little booklet on this.
Archivists do their abstracts where 1,2,,3 etc actually meaan things - like who is giving, who is getting etc.
I have never been able to get my head round the terminology, but I suspect that the release, particularly if it is longer, has the meat in it.
kiterunner
24-02-10, 13:02
Pre-nuptial incontinency sounds like pre-marital sex.
In fact, this may be it: N. W. Alcock: Old title deeds: a guide for local and family historians, 1986
I can't remember endings very well, but would "for the good of all" fit omnia bene?
Pre-nuptial incontinency sounds like pre-marital sex.
lol - I wonder if this possible ancestor imagined us talking about his wrongdoings over 350 years later? Bothers me that he is listed alone (all those listed are men) - didn't he have a partner, or was the partner not responsible for their actions??
Phoenix - so I am having to do some real learning then?
I suppose I will have to get the lease - typical that the better bit is the part I can't have.
At the end of the index entry it says: 'Schedule of Deeds 1766 -1814 on bottom of last sheet' Would this be important? I don't know if it's at the end of the lease or the release.
I can't remember endings very well, but would "for the good of all" fit omnia bene?
Thank you - That would make sense - it's the heading for the list of miscreants (the adulterous etc)
Uncle John
24-02-10, 18:42
Reply from Beds Archives states (in part) regarding the doc detailed in my original post:
This document is in two parts, both heavily folded parchment. It will be possible to copy the Lease part for you, but the Release is three large sheets of parchment stitched along one edge and to try and copy it may cause damage, so we cannot do this.
So, do I want the lease without the release? This is all double-dutch to me! lol (it's only £5 so that's not an issue)
If I wasn't up to my ears in other things I'd amble down to BLARS and take a look at it for you. But I just can't spare the time unfortunately.
If I wasn't up to my ears in other things I'd amble down to BLARS and take a look at it for you. But I just can't spare the time unfortunately.
LOL thanks for that!!
It's taken me about 20 years to find it - suppose I should have done so earlier?
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.