Author Topic: What could this mean?  (Read 517 times)

Online Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #9 on: Sunday 30 July 17 00:16 BST (UK) »
Try this explanation from National Archives.
discovery:nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/8638aea1-07f9-4b08-b59d-fc32dfee69e2
In case it doesn't work search for Recognizances-National Archives.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline nannyj

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,283
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #10 on: Sunday 30 July 17 00:21 BST (UK) »
Thank you.
Would I be right in assuming that Daniel owed people money or that they owed him?
Jamiesons, Martins and McGonigals of Coleraine, Londonderry
and
Cullens, Grahams and Challenors of Dublin county and city.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #11 on: Sunday 30 July 17 00:41 BST (UK) »
The National Archives page begins with a paragraph which explains what recognizances were, then follow some examples from a county collection.
Daniel and the other Rigby and the other people concerned may have had some dispute. Perhaps the glover and the shoemaker were filching each other's leather. They may have been related and it was some dispute over business. Or they may have come to blows in the street. Could have been anything. If the parties concerned didn't appear at court when due or didn't do what the court ordered they would have been fined or punished.
There are other queries relating to recognizances on RC. One concerns victuallers.


Online Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #12 on: Sunday 30 July 17 01:59 BST (UK) »
The record from 1670 is about Daniel Digby and his fellow constable not doing their duty and drawing up a list of names of people who weren't conforming to the Church of England. These people would have been Catholics and Dissenters (Non-Conformists).  (Catholics were blamed by many for starting the Great Fire of London 1666. A Test Act was brought into law in 1672, adding to other Penal laws. There was a fabricated "Popish Plot" in 1678.) King Charles was sympathetic to Catholics, but being a constitutional monarch had to accept laws made by Parliament. My ancestors were on lists of Recusants drawn up in this decade. There's an individual record for one who "was examined for conformity". Daniel Digby's in-action may have been seen as turning a blind eye to possible terrorist sympathisers. He was also depriving the State and Established Church of income. People could be fined for persistent non-attendance at church. Catholics who had money or property paid double tax.
It's been alleged that some people were deliberately kept off these lists. There may have been an assumption that a constable failing in his duty in this matter was showing special favour to individuals, perhaps friends, relatives or associates. There might have been a suspicion that he was accepting bribes or favours, or that he was sympathetic to Catholics and Dissenters, or even that he was secretly one himself.
"Fond" is an archival term.

Online Rosinish

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,260
  • PASSED & PAST (Speciality - South Uist, Inverness)
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #13 on: Sunday 30 July 17 02:08 BST (UK) »
Although not my post, thanks for the added info. MS as I found it very interesting!

Could just imagine the outcry if Catholics had to pay double tax in this day  ;D

Every day is a school day on RC & surprising what we learn from following queries  ;)

Annie
South Uist, Inverness-shire, Scotland:- Bowie, Campbell, Cumming, Currie, MacDonald, MacInnes, MacIntyre, MacKinnon, Steele, Walker

Ireland:- Cullen, Flannigan (Derry), Donahoe/Donaghue (variants) (Cork), McCrate (Tipperary), Mellon, Tol(l)and (Donegal & Tyrone)

Newcastle-on-Tyne/Durham (Northumberland):- Harrison, Jude, Kemp, Lunn, Mellon, Robson, Stirling

Kettering, Northampton:- MacKinnon

Canada:- Callaghan, MacKinnon, MacPhee

"OLD GENEALOGISTS NEVER DIE - THEY JUST LOSE THEIR CENSUS"

Offline nannyj

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,283
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #14 on: Sunday 30 July 17 08:19 BST (UK) »
Thanks Maiden Stone.
That was brilliant.
Interesting about the constable bit as there are nonconformists amongst my Digby ancestors, which could be a reason for his in-action.
Thanks once again - I've learned lots!
Jacqui
Jamiesons, Martins and McGonigals of Coleraine, Londonderry
and
Cullens, Grahams and Challenors of Dublin county and city.

Online Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #15 on: Sunday 30 July 17 17:27 BST (UK) »
I assume the one about victuallers was after mid-18th century. A Licensing Act was passed at that time to regulate inns. Definition of a licensed victualler: innkeeper with license to sell alcohol.  Registers of innkeepers were kept by the courts.  An innkeeper had to be a respectable person and promise to keep an orderly house. The application for a license had to include a testimonial to that effect, signed by some respectable people of standing in the community. That document you found is either a list of innkeepers or would-be innkeepers applying for new licenses, or one innkeeper with a long list of people recommending him.
Some descendants of my ancestors on the Recusants list I mentioned in my last post were the town's innkeepers for the next century and for the 1st quarter of the 19thC. The last to follow the family business moved to Manchester to take over an inn there. Signatures supporting his application seem to include anyone who was anyone in his home town, headed by the lord of the manor, vicar, parish priest and business owners. His father retired from the hospitality trade and moved to a larger town. His name was on a list in support of an innkeeper in that town.
As your Rigby people were yeomen, constables and perhaps business owners, they would be regarded as solid, respectable men, (except when they were falling out amongst themselves, or not doing their duty).

Online Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What could this mean?
« Reply #16 on: Sunday 30 July 17 18:06 BST (UK) »
Rosinish. I'm not sure when double taxes began and ended. There were so many additions and alterations to the laws to control Catholics. Different versions of the Penal laws applied to England, Scotland and Ireland.
Meanwhile, Louis 14th, cousin of King Charles, was being nasty to French Protestants. 1685 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes removed their civil liberties and caused a mass exodus of Huguenots, many to Britain.
Henry 4th of France (Henry of Navarre), grandfather of Charles and Louis, had ended the French religious wars of the 16thC. His Edict of Nantes gave Protestants civil & religious liberty. (He'd been a Protestant himself in his youth and converted to Catholicism so he could be King of France.) Charles was of a similar tolerant nature. His mother, wife and brother, and at least one of his mistresses were Catholic and his own was a deathbed conversion. If Henry 4th hadn't been assassinated and Louis hadn't waged so many wars, there might have been more religious tolerance all round. But then some of our family history might not have been so interesting and some of us wouldn't exist. There would have been no material for several episodes of WDYTYA.  :)