Author Topic: 'the younger' v 'the elder' in 17th century records  (Read 380 times)

Offline Arvanitakis

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 33
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
'the younger' v 'the elder' in 17th century records
« on: Friday 26 July 19 13:03 BST (UK) »
All,

Just a question regarding two men, father and son known as 'the younger' v 'the elder'.

I have come across a parish terrier which refers to lands owned by 'John Jones the younger' (he was in his 40s at the time). His father of the same name (who owned the same lands) had been dead for 30+ years...I was wondering if anyone has come across this before/if it was common practice to continue to refer to a son as 'the younger' even when 'the elder' no longer lives?

Thanks,
A

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,226
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 'the younger' v 'the elder' in 17th century records
« Reply #1 on: Friday 26 July 19 14:12 BST (UK) »
There was another thread recently on the same topic.
Cowban

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,317
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 'the younger' v 'the elder' in 17th century records
« Reply #2 on: Friday 26 July 19 20:33 BST (UK) »
I don't have time to search for the other thread but my experience is that a Fred Nurk would be "the younger" while his father Fred Nurk was alive:  when his father died he would become plain Fred Nurk and when he had a son he would become Fred Nurk "the elder".

This last change might not happen immediately on the son's birth but would certainly happen when the son was old enough to take some part in the activities of the parish.

HOWEVER - this assumes the parish has no other Fred Nurks.  If the parish contains two (or more) family lines of Nurks with Freds existing in both lines then all bets are off.

In this situation it would be unsafe to draw any conclusion from the appellation "the elder" or "the younger".

Offline JohninSussex

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
    • View Profile
Re: 'the younger' v 'the elder' in 17th century records
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 27 July 19 20:38 BST (UK) »
I have come across a parish terrier which refers to lands owned by 'John Jones the younger' (he was in his 40s at the time). His father of the same name (who owned the same lands) had been dead for 30+ years...I was wondering if anyone has come across this before/if it was common practice to continue to refer to a son as 'the younger' even when 'the elder' no longer lives?

I wonder what you mean by "at the time".  I suppose you mean the time the parish terrier was produced/issued or let's say compiled.  But what does that mean?  Was it compiled from scratch or did the clerk take an earlier edition and simply update details of land that had changed hands?  In which case he may not have thought it necessary to change the description of the landowner John Jones just because his father was now deceased.
Rutter, Sampson, Swinerd, Head, Redman in Kent.  Others in Cheshire, Manchester, Glos/War/Worcs.
RUTTER family and Matilda Sampson's Will: