Hi, everyone. Three questions:contract on his family's end, or would an uncle, elder brother, or other older, experienced/responsible person take that role?
1) Would the parties to a 16th-century marriage contract between landed families usually be the fathers of the bride and groom, if these fathers were living? For example, if the groom's father had died, would the groom himself likely be party to the
I think my Christopher FitzRandolph's uncle of the same name was the contract party on Fitz end -- 1514 -- and not Chris himself. Six or eight years later, Chris's father- in- law, Cuthbert Langton, sues Chris and wife, claiming sneaky, connivingdealing on Chris's part re: lands that didn't belong to him.
2) Were these kinds of suits pretty standard -- an aging parent charging that the young groom/couple were trying to overreach/take advantage? Or maybe Chris was just greedy and underhanded...-)
3) What role did foeffees have in preventing this sort of situation? Weren't they entrusted by bride's father with helping to manage lands cited in the marriage contract?
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:47 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:contract on his family's end, or would an uncle, elder brother, or other older, experienced/responsible person take that role?
Hi, everyone. Three questions:
1) Would the parties to a 16th-century marriage contract between landed families usually be the fathers of the bride and groom, if these fathers were living? For example, if the groom's father had died, would the groom himself likely be party to the
The likely parties would be whoever legally controlled the person of the groom/bride and the family estates involved in the settlement - the father, grandfather, uncle, guardian, lawyer for mother, or an adult groom himself.dealing on Chris's part re: lands that didn't belong to him.
I think my Christopher FitzRandolph's uncle of the same name was the contract party on Fitz end -- 1514 -- and not Chris himself. Six or eight years later, Chris's father- in- law, Cuthbert Langton, sues Chris and wife, claiming sneaky, conniving
underhanded feoffee might likewise take advantage of his position and bring about such a situation rather than preventing it.2) Were these kinds of suits pretty standard -- an aging parent charging that the young groom/couple were trying to overreach/take advantage? Or maybe Chris was just greedy and underhanded...-)
Pretty routine.
3) What role did foeffees have in preventing this sort of situation? Weren't they entrusted by bride's father with helping to manage lands cited in the marriage contract?Depends on the conditions of the feoffment. They would not prevent such situations, as a truly greedy and underhanded groom likely would try to get away with whatever he could, independent of a feoffment, but also bear in mind that a greedy and
taftaf, thank you. This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of
This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, andher new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had --
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had --
This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin, and
Pretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirs of the
I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was cast
taftaf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin,
cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirsPretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was
taf and all, another question about foeffees named in a 16th-century marriage contract.taftaf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power women had
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of origin,
cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirsPretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was
whereas a number of foeffees named are sirs/knights: Sir John Markham, John Zouch, John Willowby, Edward Willowby, Nicolas Strelley, etc. Several others were called "Esq.," including John FitzRandolph, who it's thought was the last surviving lord oftaf and all, another question about foeffees named in a 16th-century marriage contract.taftaf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
In my document -- Cuthbert Langton of Notts/Derby, 1516, agreeing with Kirkby-in-Ashfield parson Christopher FitzRandolph to the marriage of Cuthbert's daughter to parson's kinsman (also called Christopher FitzRandolph). Cuthbert was styled "gentleman,"
Question is, were these foeffees likely people that Cuthbert Langton knew well or perhaps was related to by marriage or descent through his mother? If not, how likely is it is that a gentleman would approach a number of men of higher social standing tobe his foeffees? I'm still getting to know these customs and relationships.
The maiden surnames of the wives of Cuthbert Langton and his father John, and of Christopher FitzRandolph, the groom, don't seem to be known yet, and I'm wondering if this group of foeffees might hold some clues.
On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:origin, and her new husband and the family unit they were forming? In these situations, did peoples' relationships with their siblings sometimes suffer, as they were trying to maneuver for the best land ownership for themselves? I wonder how much power
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:48:04 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:52:03 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
This is really helpful. Another quick question: In these apparently common situations, did the bride/wife sometimes find that she was stuck with a greedy, underhanded, etc. groom and feel torn between the interests of her father/family of
cast as an accusation of kidnapping, ammounting in real life to the wife going to live with her mother for a few weeks, and among the accused were members of two neighboring families. The case was 'resolved' by marrying the daughters to the young heirsPretty much anything you can imagine happened at some point.
I don't remember the exact details, but I once came across a suit where a wife colluded with her mother in a bid to protect her inheritance for her daughters from being squandered by her proflagate husband, their father. The resulting lawsuit was
gentleman," whereas a number of foeffees named are sirs/knights: Sir John Markham, John Zouch, John Willowby, Edward Willowby, Nicolas Strelley, etc. Several others were called "Esq.," including John FitzRandolph, who it's thought was the last survivingtaf and all, another question about foeffees named in a 16th-century marriage contract.taftaf, yikes. I can imagine that just about anything can and did happen, just as it does in our day. Thanks so much for your help.
In my document -- Cuthbert Langton of Notts/Derby, 1516, agreeing with Kirkby-in-Ashfield parson Christopher FitzRandolph to the marriage of Cuthbert's daughter to parson's kinsman (also called Christopher FitzRandolph). Cuthbert was styled "
to be his foeffees? I'm still getting to know these customs and relationships.Question is, were these foeffees likely people that Cuthbert Langton knew well or perhaps was related to by marriage or descent through his mother? If not, how likely is it is that a gentleman would approach a number of men of higher social standing
overlord (boss), local gentry (respected people in the same social circle), mutual friends and/or attourneys. One cannot presume a relationship existed between any particular trustee and either party.The maiden surnames of the wives of Cuthbert Langton and his father John, and of Christopher FitzRandolph, the groom, don't seem to be known yet, and I'm wondering if this group of foeffees might hold some clues.These feoffees are effectively trustees - people who were entrusted to look after the landed interest of the young couple, and the adults reaching the agreement would turn to a similar group of people as one might turn to today: relatives, a feudal
taftaf, Thank you, as always, for good insight. With your comments in mind, I have a couple more questions, whenever you have time.
1) I've encountered the Willoughby name a number of times in connection with my Cuthbert Langton of early 16th-century Notts/Derby. Then yesterday, I found a suit involving Cuthbert's grandson -- a son of his daughter Benet. The son's name was alsoBenet, and his surname was Langton (not Burgh, the surname of his mother Benet's known husband...Not sure what's up with this...was the son illegitimate? Had the couple divorced? Both seem unlikely?) In any case, and related to the might-be-family
"...Deed of sale: Edward Wylloughby Knt. and Benet Langton to Roland Babyngton; Location: Birchwood Derbyshire" (1536)
Does this wording mean that Wylloughby and Langton were selling jointly owned property?
(Was a foeffee ever, under any circumstances, considered a joint owner of land he'd been
charged with managing or protecting for a younger party?)
Or could the two men simply have been partners in a business deal (is this unlikely, given the apparent disparity in their ages/probable wealth levels)?
2) Cuthbert Langton is cited in various documents and works as being "of Middleton, Warwickshire" or as owning lands there. Yet I think his family had lived in Notts/Derby for generations, and IPMs I've seen for Cuthbert's father and grandfather referonly to Notts. If Cuthbert's father and grandfather had owned lands in Warwickshire, why were these not cited in IPMs (had they already been bequeathed or otherwise conveyed)?
Or could Cuthbert have come into possession of Warwickshire lands on his own, through marriage, the will of a relative, etc.?
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 3:02:36 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:Benet, and his surname was Langton (not Burgh, the surname of his mother Benet's known husband...Not sure what's up with this...was the son illegitimate? Had the couple divorced? Both seem unlikely?) In any case, and related to the might-be-family
1) I've encountered the Willoughby name a number of times in connection with my Cuthbert Langton of early 16th-century Notts/Derby. Then yesterday, I found a suit involving Cuthbert's grandson -- a son of his daughter Benet. The son's name was also
for a set duration of time before reversion might end up seeing both participate in a deed."...Deed of sale: Edward Wylloughby Knt. and Benet Langton to Roland Babyngton; Location: Birchwood Derbyshire" (1536)
Does this wording mean that Wylloughby and Langton were selling jointly owned property?You can't really tell from the abstract. You also see phrasing like this when a man was acting on behalf of a woman or minor. The original would make their roles more clear.
(Was a foeffee ever, under any circumstances, considered a joint owner of land he'd beenDepends on the nature of the enfeofment and its precise wording. Legally, the feoffee was sole 'owner', unless the feoffment involved only a share of the property. Though I don't recall ever seeing it, perhaps a scenario where the feoffeee was holding
charged with managing or protecting for a younger party?)
for a long time, because the grantor's son was a fugitive from justice for a murder, and risked confiscation if the father died before the son was pardoned or himself died and the land could again safely be possessed by his heirs - remember when I saidOr could the two men simply have been partners in a business deal (is this unlikely, given the apparent disparity in their ages/probable wealth levels)?Could be. (I can't address the age issue - I don't know how different they were, but I recall seeing at least one trust where a very young man was included along with more senior ones because the goal was to remove the land from the family's control
refer only to Notts. If Cuthbert's father and grandfather had owned lands in Warwickshire, why were these not cited in IPMs (had they already been bequeathed or otherwise conveyed)?2) Cuthbert Langton is cited in various documents and works as being "of Middleton, Warwickshire" or as owning lands there. Yet I think his family had lived in Notts/Derby for generations, and IPMs I've seen for Cuthbert's father and grandfather
Ipms were perfomed separately for each county, so it is not a question of the property not being included in their imps, but of there not being records of a separate ipms being performed in Warwickshire. I am not familiar enough with the process toanswer definitively, but I would think if the land they held in the coulty was known not to have been held in chief of the king (which is what an ipm was intended to determine) then one may never have been held.
taf, Thank you. All of your responses so helpful. I might be out of luck when it comes to sale of possibly jointly held property...Just noticed that abstract says the item is fragile and not suitable for production. Does Archives staff respond to bribesOr could Cuthbert have come into possession of Warwickshire lands on his own, through marriage, the will of a relative, etc.?or purchase (fine, private charter, etc.) Yes.
taf
taf, Thank you. All of your responses so helpful. I might be out of luck when it comes to sale of possibly jointly held property...Just noticed that abstract says the item is fragile and not suitable for production. Does Archives staff respond tobribes or begging? -: I'm going to do some exploring in Warwickshire and continue trying to decipher some other documents that are, thank goodness, in English. Will also dip my toe in the feet-of-fines water and start learning about these. It's fun to
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 295 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 01:49:26 |
Calls: | 6,642 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,190 |
Messages: | 5,325,482 |