Each time I have posted a message on the local history list, I am getting a
response such as that set out below. I think this must be because
[log in to unmask] is a member of the list, but with his address
corrupted. Can you not block this address? I am sure that I cannot be
the only person getting this problem.
A computer belonging to Woollard, Matthew G <[log in to unmask]> who must
be a list member has been set to put in an automatic response:
"I shall be out of email contact until Sunday 27th March, and will reply to
any mail then."
Another list of which I am a member had some one do this and his (?her)
automatic response to every message (on-list) provoked considerable
annoyance to regular list members. Eventually the list-owner took action
to suspend the offending member. Could you please act promptly on this
one?
----- Original Message -----
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 24 February 2000 08:19
Subject: Delivery Error
> A message To: [log in to unmask]
> From: -maiser-@lbhill
> Subject: Message not delivered
>
> Produced the following MHS/SMF delivery notification:
>
> 101: Unknown user at destination host
>
> ----------------------------[ returned
message ]----------------------------
> Message could not be delivered to the following recipients which are
> not known to cc:Mail:
>
> CCOTTON@LBHILL
>
> Original Message Follows:
> =========================
> I have recently seen an inquisition post mortem of 1638 for a farm
consisting of just a virgate, which was held of the king in chief by knight
service, but by what part of a knight's fee was unknown.
> 1.. How common was it for properties of such a relatively small size to
be held by knight service?
> 2.. Does the lack of knowledge of the extent of the tenure imply that
the tenure was of ancient (i.e. medieval) origin, rather than arising from
a sale by the crown under Henry VIII or one of his successors?
> 3.. The inquisition concerned a person who had died in 1631. Is it
usual for the inquisition to be held so long after a person's death?
> 4.. Am I right in thinking there ought to have been an inquisition every
time the property passed on death?
> My experience of property held by knight service relates principally to
the medieval period and to manors, rather than farms of modest size,
though I am aware that some property sold off by the Crown in the Tudor
period was to be held by a fortieth part of a knight's fee (or such like),
rather than being held 'as of the manor of East Greenwich by free and common
socage' (or such like).
> Peter King
>
>
> -------------------------[ Content-type:
text/html ]------------------------
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=GENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT size=2>I have recently seen an inquisition post mortem of 1638
for a
> farm consisting of just a virgate, which was held of the king in
chief by
> knight service, but by what part of a knight's fee was
> unknown. </FONT></DIV>
> <OL>
> <LI><FONT size=2>How common was it for properties of such a relatively
small
> size to be held by knight service?</FONT></LI>
> <LI><FONT size=2>Does the lack of knowledge of the extent of the
tenure
> imply that the tenure was of ancient (i.e. medieval) origin,
rather than
> arising from a sale by the crown under Henry VIII or one of his
successors?
> </FONT></LI>
> <LI><FONT size=2>The inquisition concerned a person who had died in
> 1631. Is it usual for the inquisition to be held so long
after a
> person's death?</FONT></LI>
> <LI><FONT size=2>Am I right in thinking there ought to have been an
> inquisition every time the property passed on death?</FONT></LI></OL>
> <DIV><FONT size=2>My experience of property held by knight service relates
> principally to the medieval period and to manors, rather than farms
of
> modest size, though I am aware that some property sold off by the
Crown in
> the Tudor period was to be held by a fortieth part of a knight's fee (or
such
> like), rather than being held 'as of the manor of East Greenwich by
free
> and common socage' (or such like). </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=2>Peter King</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
