GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > 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
assumption?

Kay Allen AG

Renia wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Renia
>
> 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

This thread: