1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  3. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  4. This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  5. It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

Putting theory into practice

Discussion in 'Comments on the latest newsletter' started by The Rhymer, Oct 6, 2023.

  1. MeganN

    MeganN LostCousins Member

    The legal usage of "infant" (at least in the 18th century) is borne out by a 1733 item at TNA found in my own family research:

    Reference: C 11/1508/10 Description:
    Short title: Bringloe v Scott.
    Document type: Bill and answer.
    Plaintiffs: Porter Bringloe, Bedell Bringloe, Stafford Bringloe, Capell Bringloe and Edward Bringloe, infants (by John Bringloe, gent of Wood Rising, Norfolk, their father) and said John Bringloe (brother and administrator of Henry Bringloe, mariner deceased).
    Defendants: George Scott and William Sawbridge.
    Date of bill (or first document): 1733

    The "infants" named were born/baptised in 1716, 1717, 1719, 1721 and 1724 respectively. So aged approximately 17, 16, 14, 12, and 9. All boys (no girls in this family then or subsequently) so this doesn't speak to the gender query.

    The father, John Bringloe, was my direct ancestor. Sorry Peter, he isn't in my LC list because he didn't make it to the 1841 Census, let alone 1881. Nor did the sons but some of their progeny did. And they are definitely there!
     

Share This Page