On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:01:13 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:02:35 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
Hello, all. Question about use of manorial documents: Is it correct that, when consulting these, it's wise to check records of immediately adjacent manors, and maybe records of parishes adjacent to -- or within [x?] miles of -- the primary manor and
parish of interest?
I assume this might give a researcher the best chance of locating younger members of an adult sibling group within an ancestral family...that such members may have moved away from the lord/heir's home -- possibly to other lands held by the family,
some reasonably close by and others far away?
It's hard to decide how far afield -- literally and figuratively -- to go when trying to find an elusive ancestor. Just wondering, within reasonable limits, about manorial records. Thanks, as always.
At the risk of emphasizing a point you already appreciate, most of the time manorial records do not survive or are really hard to consult. Those that are deposited in archives are very much the exception, not the rule. Thus the idea of checking
immediately-adjacent manors seems good in theory, but in practice not so much.
As to the proximity effect, there probably was a relationship between distance and likelihood a younger son would settle in a place, but not with a high degree of correlation. One would be more aware of available properties in the immediate area, but
so many other factors were involved. Families often had far-reaching social connections, across the county or country, from which they might learn of opportunities. There were also in-and-out effects with the cities (particularly London) and the
universities, to which a younger son would go seeking opportunities, and there gain a truly-national social network that would then leverage to acquire a new seat in the country, distant from their place of origin, through marriage, purchase, or in the
case of the universities, acquiring a parish as vicar. My gut feeling is that the inordinant effort it would take to locate and consult records of numerous adjacent manors would not be worth the hunt, unless you already know the family had a presence
there (e.g. an ipm told you they were there).
Parish registers are a better target. A couple usually married in or near the groom's or the bride's home or else in/near London (which is less help as the records of this period never connect them with their home parishes). Depending on when you are
talking about, the records are more likely to have survived, and easier to consult. Finding a marriage of a younger son can give you the wife's name, and hence perhaps enable you to make a tentative match with parents of baptized children even at a
distant parishes if the name combination is unusual enough and the chronology matches.
"As to the proximity effect, there probably was a relationship between distance and likelihood a younger son would settle in a place, but not with a high degree of correlation. One would be more aware of available properties in the immediate area, but so
many other factors were involved. Families often had far-reaching social connections, across the county or country, from which they might learn of opportunities. There were also in-and-out effects with the cities (particularly London) and the
universities, to which a younger son would go seeking opportunities, and there gain a truly-national social network that would then leverage to acquire a new seat in the country, distant from their place of origin, through marriage, purchase, or in the
case of the universities, acquiring a parish as vicar."
taf, Thank you...you've provided much-needed insights, as always. In trying to learn so many aspects at once, I forgot that manorial records are quite limited. Without a comprehensive (or even basic) knowledge of the history of a given period -- and a
working knowledge of records, how they were created, and how they've made their way to various repositories -- it's tricky.
I didn't start with parish records in this case because my subject FitzRandolph ancestors lived and died several decades before most of the registers start; I wasn't sure -- for the mid-15th to mid-16th centuries -- what another sensible starting point
might be. Any suggestions?
My John FitzRandolph, d. prob before 1516, was presumed to have been the third or fourth son of his parents; John's son, Christopher, had a marriage arranged by John's presumed brother -- Chris "parson" -- who had been "sent to that living" in a
Nottinghamshire parish, from North Yorkshire, in 1490...John and Chris parson's presumed uncle J. Conyers held the advowson. While I've had a little luck researching the parson, his brother -- direct ancestor, John -- has proven completely elusive. Maybe,
as you said, he'd gone to university somewhere, or to London (or York, maybe?), worked there or met and married, and even died there? Later, John's brother the parson arranged a marriage in Notts for John's son? So this might have been a good example of
what you were explaining: a born-in-Yorkshire uncle who placed his parson nephew in a Notts parish, and that nephew arranging a marriage for his own nephew in Notts/Derby.
Sounds like I need to look into where younger sons in almost any county might have gone to university (in addition to Oxford, Cambridge?), and which cities they might have gone to for work (in addition to London).
I also don't know the names of at least two wives of subject FitzRandolphs. I have no idea how far Mr. Coddington looked into this in trying to solve the gap in this pedigree. In his notes to FitzRandolph pedigree in "Magna Carta Sureties," he says that
wife of Christopher FitzRandolph (d. 1588) had pre-deceased her husband and wasn't known, but this appears to be an error: Chris's wife IS mentioned in his will, but her name is not given. He was buried, I think, at St. Mary Magdalene in Sutton-in-
Ashfield, so she is likely there, too...Maybe I can find something.
Thanks again, taf. So appreciate your help.
*
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)