GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-07 > 0932438386
From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: An Adult in the Middle Ages
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:39:46 -0700
I am not familiar with the 25 majority. Don't forget that the ages in
ipms are not exact. They can be quite off, as much as ten or twenty
years. The important fact was that the heir had achieved 21.
Kay Allen AG
Renia Simmonds wrote:
> I can't remember the details for this, but at some point in time, 25 was
> considered the age of majority for male heirs. As to IPMs, they usually
> give ages, as mentioned below. I have also come across Court Rolls (very
> close to Thirsk, as it happens) where the father was declared lately
> deceased, and that his (married) daughter, was "aged 22 years and upwards".
> <some snipping>
> various wrote:
> > But they were, at least for heirs. If an heir were under 21, his
> > guardianship, and control of his lands, would belong to the King, if he
> > were a tenent in capite, or to his superior overlord, if he were not.
> > This meant money to the guardian. This is why you will find proofs of
> > age. The case of heiresses was a little different. If she were married
> > at the time of her father's death, no matter what her age, she was
> > considered an adult, as she had a de facto guardian, her husband.
> > >
> > > At any rate, that is irrelevant to the 1227 date. The point
> > > is that we don't know how the term 'adult' was derived in
> > > this case (in the absence of an appropriate footnote),
> > > meaning that we can't make any safe assumptions about it.
> > CP was cited as the source. CP typically gives the age of the subject
> > as given by ipm or by the fact that the subject assumed the property
> > without a guardianship. Therefore, I maintain that the date of 1227
> > is relevant as a date from which to calculate; not for exactitude, but
> > as a "before" calculation.
> > Kay Allen AG
> > >
> > > Chris
|Re: An Adult in the Middle Ages by Kay Allen AG <>|