Could SKS give me the gist of this document please.
- Thread starter Findem
- Start date
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
As a start.
Coln Wake & Coln Engaine otherwise Little Coln.
At the General Court Baron of Samuel London Esquire, Lord of the said mannor for the same mannor On Wednesday? The thirteenth day of March in the eleventh year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the second By the of grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland king Defender of the Faith ? And in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty seven before George Gray Esquire ? .? It is thus (inrolled?)
Coln Wake & Coln Engaine otherwise Little Coln.
At the General Court Baron of Samuel London Esquire, Lord of the said mannor for the same mannor On Wednesday? The thirteenth day of March in the eleventh year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the second By the of grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland king Defender of the Faith ? And in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty seven before George Gray Esquire ? .? It is thus (inrolled?)
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
The next bit is About John Potter as a lease on the said manor........too much for my eyes. Sorry. Eyes still recovering from eyelid surgery.
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
Title:
Admission of Sarah Potter on death of her husband John
Level: Category
Estate and Family records
Level: Fonds
DEEDS OF VARIOUS PARISHES
Scope and Content:
A tenement called Rovesland, abutting on Mount Bures highway E., on Gallow croft N., on beats W., and on a lane and Wakes Green S.; a tenement called Cobsland and 4 crofts of land, abutting on highway to Mount Bures W., on Beake lands N. and W., on Jayesly Spring N. and E., and on Cobsland W.; [as in D/DYz 4,8 and 11]; all copyhold of manor of Colne Wake and Colne Engaine or Little Colne.
Court of Samuel London, esq. Steward: Charles Gray, esq.
Dates of Creation:
30 March 1737
ESSEX ARCHIVES ONLINE
Admission of Sarah Potter on death of her husband John
Level: Category
Estate and Family records
Level: Fonds
DEEDS OF VARIOUS PARISHES
Scope and Content:
A tenement called Rovesland, abutting on Mount Bures highway E., on Gallow croft N., on beats W., and on a lane and Wakes Green S.; a tenement called Cobsland and 4 crofts of land, abutting on highway to Mount Bures W., on Beake lands N. and W., on Jayesly Spring N. and E., and on Cobsland W.; [as in D/DYz 4,8 and 11]; all copyhold of manor of Colne Wake and Colne Engaine or Little Colne.
Court of Samuel London, esq. Steward: Charles Gray, esq.
Dates of Creation:
30 March 1737
ESSEX ARCHIVES ONLINE
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
Thirtieth
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
It seems that the tenancy is being transferred to Sarah Potter after Johns death for the term of her natural life as examined by Charles Gray, Steward.
That's my take anyway, in short.
That's my take anyway, in short.
Findem
The Fearless One. Rest in Peace.
Btw Mr John Potter was buried 6 Nov 1736 at Wakes Colne, there was no "husband of" or similar wording attached but that burial is the only one which is in the right time frame and the right area.
I think his wife Sarah Potter (no Mrs) was buried 3 Jun1747 at Copford but unfortunately no identifying info attached.
I think his wife Sarah Potter (no Mrs) was buried 3 Jun1747 at Copford but unfortunately no identifying info attached.
Findem
The Fearless One. Rest in Peace.
Can I have a verdict regarding the property in Mount Bures please, I can read most of this document which is a memorandum regarding , I think, a couple of tenants I can read most of it but some of it I can't.
I have the impression that it is allowing tenants to stay on but is notifying the Lardy of the Manor and others that any rents etc will now go to John's wife Sarah, something like that.
I have the impression that it is allowing tenants to stay on but is notifying the Lardy of the Manor and others that any rents etc will now go to John's wife Sarah, something like that.
Attachments
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
All I can make of it is that John Potter and Sarah Sturgeon weren’t married when the document was drawn up November 1731.
Whichever.......the use of the property to be used by either after the other is deceased and any heirs from them after they die. Provided they solemnise their relationship.....just guessing here.
Heirs from her body are mentioned.....
Whichever.......the use of the property to be used by either after the other is deceased and any heirs from them after they die. Provided they solemnise their relationship.....just guessing here.
Heirs from her body are mentioned.....
Last edited:
Findem
The Fearless One. Rest in Peace.
Thanks Sue.
They married 11 November 1731 at Copford, Essex, I think I misunderstood it, on reflection I think it was stating that whoever survives the other gets the property.
I'm still of the opinion that the pair were living together pre marriage or at least having fun because of the three children baptised 1723 to 1728 at White Colne, parents stated to be John & Sarah, they were then followed by three children Elizabeth 1732 at Copford and then Sarah 1733 and William 1736 both at White Colne.
Unless of course another John and Sarah Potter were in White Colne up to 1728 but I haven't any evidence of that.
They married 11 November 1731 at Copford, Essex, I think I misunderstood it, on reflection I think it was stating that whoever survives the other gets the property.
I'm still of the opinion that the pair were living together pre marriage or at least having fun because of the three children baptised 1723 to 1728 at White Colne, parents stated to be John & Sarah, they were then followed by three children Elizabeth 1732 at Copford and then Sarah 1733 and William 1736 both at White Colne.
Unless of course another John and Sarah Potter were in White Colne up to 1728 but I haven't any evidence of that.
Archie's Mum
Always digging up clues
Need a specialist here but from what I can decipher, both have a legal right to use the property for the term of their natural life as well as those LEGAL children born to her.
By that could that be that any children born in the marriage and not those born outside of it?
So, the children born before have no legal right to use the property.
I think the other names, Jonker and Osborne were also tenants but were there to witness the document drawn up by Grimston who was replacing (at this time) the Lady of the Manor’s bailiffe.
By that could that be that any children born in the marriage and not those born outside of it?
So, the children born before have no legal right to use the property.
I think the other names, Jonker and Osborne were also tenants but were there to witness the document drawn up by Grimston who was replacing (at this time) the Lady of the Manor’s bailiffe.
Last edited:
Findem
The Fearless One. Rest in Peace.
I'm no expert but that seems to be the case, if that is the case it does seem harsh on those three children born pre marriage.
One would expect people of standing to behave better wouldn't one, I mean three children. Seriously though I wonder what was going on, if Sarah Sturgeon wasn't a widow but was known as Mrs, does that signify a divorce and Sarah subsequently reverting back to her maiden name.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I read it in the same way: it was signed on 10 Nov 1731, in anticipation of the marriage the next day, to convert John Potter's tenancy to a kind of joint tenancy which would pass to Sarah if John died first, and then to any children they had together (lawfully).
The thing about illegitimate children is that they had virtually no rights, and it was almost as though they didn't exist - one term for them was "nobody's child". To gain any kind of recognition they would need to be specifically named (and often described as "XYZ's natural child"); it's just a guess, but maybe the lady of the manor considered it beneath the manor's dignity to consider including them even on those terms.
Mrs was also used as a kind of honorific title for single women of higher status, so I don't think you can read too much into that. According to the document John Potter was a gentleman, and so was Philip Sturgeon (Sarah's father), so you're quite likely in the right sort of class for this to be possible.
The thing about illegitimate children is that they had virtually no rights, and it was almost as though they didn't exist - one term for them was "nobody's child". To gain any kind of recognition they would need to be specifically named (and often described as "XYZ's natural child"); it's just a guess, but maybe the lady of the manor considered it beneath the manor's dignity to consider including them even on those terms.
Mrs was also used as a kind of honorific title for single women of higher status, so I don't think you can read too much into that. According to the document John Potter was a gentleman, and so was Philip Sturgeon (Sarah's father), so you're quite likely in the right sort of class for this to be possible.
Findem
The Fearless One. Rest in Peace.
Thanks for that Arthur, some of the happenings in that family have been difficult to gain some sort of understanding.
In the absence of evidence of another John and Sarah Potter operating in the same area as John Potter and his wife Sarah Sturgeon I'm going to record those first three children as part of that Family. Fortunately for me, my ancestor William Potter being baptised in 1736 is the last child of the marriage so I can be sure his parents are definitely John Potter and Sarah Sturgeon who by 1736 had been legally married 5 years.
I think for now I've come to the end of the road with the Potter and associated families line, it's now a question of anything I look for cant be found, I'm coming to the conclusion the marriages and baptisms I'm looking for happened outside Essex and at a guess Suffolk. Unfortunately no luck with Ancestry, FreeReg or Family Search, still I can't complain I've had a good run thanks to some help.
In the absence of evidence of another John and Sarah Potter operating in the same area as John Potter and his wife Sarah Sturgeon I'm going to record those first three children as part of that Family. Fortunately for me, my ancestor William Potter being baptised in 1736 is the last child of the marriage so I can be sure his parents are definitely John Potter and Sarah Sturgeon who by 1736 had been legally married 5 years.
I think for now I've come to the end of the road with the Potter and associated families line, it's now a question of anything I look for cant be found, I'm coming to the conclusion the marriages and baptisms I'm looking for happened outside Essex and at a guess Suffolk. Unfortunately no luck with Ancestry, FreeReg or Family Search, still I can't complain I've had a good run thanks to some help.
Findem
The Fearless One. Rest in Peace.
This is something from my post #1 on this topic.
Yesterday I went for a routine check up with my Ophthalmologist, it's not my glasses, I was informed that I have "dry eye". I've been told to discontinue one of the newly proscribed eye drops which are thought to be the culprits and go back in three months to see what's what. I will see my optometrist and see if I need new glasses though, just in case it's a double whammy, I'm well overdue for a free check up.
Ma-dotcom
A Bonza Little Digger!
Nope, don't think so, those of standing are usually sitting on judgement of everyone else. Children were of no consequence.