Will & inventory help please

[Kessa]

I have an ancestor whose will and inventory from 1681 has survived.  The inventory lists all his goods and chattels and comes to a total of £180 11s 0d.  In other records he is described as a yeoman.  If he owned land, would it have been included in the inventory?  There is no land listed in this inventory.
He doesn't mention any land in his will but he also hasn't left the remainder of his estate (after a couple of bequests to his wife and son) to anyone.
Would anyone have any thoughts on this?
Many thanks

[Old Bristolian]

Many of those described as yeomen were in fact copyhold leaseholders, and their lease would have been for so many 'lives', normally three named individuals. In such a case the lease would have automatically gone to the next 'life' often a son on the payment of a fine or heriot. Have you any information on the status of the son?

Steve

[Kessa]

Thanks for that helpful information.  The only occupational info I have on the son is that when he married by licence in 1702 he is described as a husbandman.  I guess that would be a level down from a yeoman.  Some of the family members in the later 1700s and 1800s called themselves yeoman.

[Kiltpin]

Thanks for that helpful information.  The only occupational info I have on the son is that when he married by licence in 1702 he is described as a husbandman.  I guess that would be a level down from a yeoman.  Some of the family members in the later 1700s and 1800s called themselves yeoman.

 

I think that they might have been on a par - 

yeoman = crops

husbandman = livestock 

Regards 

Chas

[Old Bristolian]

I don't think that is correct. Both terms indicate farming but with no differentiation of type. Strictly a yeoman owned the freehold of his land although this was much abused especially in later times. It could also include copyholders. Husband an merely implies more of what we would term a smallholder.

Steve

[Kiltpin]

I don't think that is correct. Both terms indicate farming but with no differentiation of type. Strictly a yeoman owned the freehold of his land although this was much abused especially in later times. It could also include copyholders. Husband an merely implies more of what we would term a smallholder.

Steve

 

We will have to agree to disagree. If you look up "husbandry", the word that usually goes with it is animal, as in animal husbandry. I have yet to find an example of plant husbandry. 

Regards 

Chas

[Marmalady]

No, land would not be mentioned in an Inventory of "goods and chattels" -- which are his personal possessions that aren't land.
So his farming implements, his household furniture, his pots & pans, his clothes & bedding etc etc would all be goods & chattels but his fields or other land would not be

[Kessa]

Thank you Marmalady, that was something I didn't know and is very enlightening. 

Thank you also Old Bristolian and Kiltpin for your discussion on the terms yeoman and husbandman.  I will try to find more on these descriptions.

[Drayke]

I have yet to find an example of plant husbandry. 

Of course except for the origin of the word Husbandman literally being a householder or tiller [to grow] of land...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/husbandman#etymonline_v_34427

If you actually look into it further, the word 'bond' as an adjective comes from the same base word that husbandman does and the word bond implies "in a state of a serf, unfree," or what we would call now a 'bond' between the tenant/farmer and the Lord.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/bond#etymonline_v_52946

Yeoman was a holder of freehold land until the Yeoman's started to become rich/hold more land and then the term yeoman changed to mean a farmer possessing land/money and this could be either freehold or copyhold or both.

A Husbandman was a small land holder/farmer.