GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1990-08 > 0651073772
From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Age of competency
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 1990 06:49:32 -0700
Ordinarily, I would agree, but I don't think that a child of that age
would have been judged competent, legally, to have signed his own
apprenticeship papers on his own account. Or is this an incorrect
Kay Allen AG
> >From my limited knowledges of apprentices in this earlier period, he could
> well be as young as 10, perhaps younger. His apprenticeship was for 11
> years, which was quite long. Often, it was 7 years. I don't know for sure,
> but my feeling is, that in many cases, the end of the apprenticeship would
> tally with when he was 21.
> My suspicion on this case, is that this was a young lad, no more than a
> boy, and he must have travelled over with someone, perhaps even the person
> to whom he was apprenticed. He could have been an orphan, without any
> family, so without any legal guardian. But he must have travelled over with
> someone from his own home area.
> Kay Allen AG wrote:
> > I have a question concerning when a young person might be considered
> > competent to act for himself.
> > A young man, possibly only a lad, comes to New England in 1634 (sorry
> > for the out of periodness), apparently alone, and apprentices himself
> > to a carpenter for 11 years. Would he have had to have been at least 18
> > or 21, or could he have done so at a younger, say 15. Some people have
> > surmised that this young man was only 10, but I maintain that at that
> > young an age, he would have had a guardian appointed for him, in loco
> > parentis (?sp.) [in place of parents].
> > I would very much appreciate it if someone would discuss these
> > points for me.
> > Thanks much.
> > Kay Allen AG
|Re: Age of competency by Kay Allen AG <>|