Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Yeoman

  1. #1
    fountainpen
    Guest

    Default Yeoman

    Can someone tell me exactly what a Yeoman is or would be in 1630 .He left a will so must have been sort of well off ?

  2. #2
    Loves to help with queries.
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The garden of England
    Posts
    192

    Default yeoman

    Hi Fountainpen, I'm sure a yeoman was a farmer or freeholder who owned and farmed his own land. A yeoman could also be a posistion in a royal or noble household. Icould be wrong, I'm sure others would put me right.

  3. #3
    A Knight in shining armour. jeeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    1,813

    Default

    Hi,
    Yeoman is a word that has a tendancy to change its meaning over the years. Originally, as Kate quite rightly says, was a freeholder of land and was eligible to vote on juries etc, if my memory serves me right I think the land had to have a yearly value of 40 shillings. By 1630 the term was usually used to denote better off farmers, ie landowners whereas tenants were referred to as husbandman. Of course some people referred to themselves as Yeoman because it merely sounded better than farmer.

    In 1630, your ancestor would probably have been a landowner and would have been very likely to have left a Will, something only about 10% of the population did then.

    Jeremy

  4. #4
    fountainpen
    Guest

    Default

    Yes he did leave a will totalling 161 pounds which back in the day must have been a lot??

  5. #5
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,494

    Default

    Does the will mention land?

    In 1630, I wouldn't assume that a Yeoman necessarily owned his own land. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a relatively well off copyhold tenant being described as a Yeoman.

  6. #6
    fountainpen
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Goodey View Post
    Does the will mention land?

    In 1630, I wouldn't assume that a Yeoman necessarily owned his own land. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a relatively well off copyhold tenant being described as a Yeoman.
    Hi,
    I will have to dig his wil out to find out but I know later in time his sons rented land to tenants and numerous sons down over .When i have checked records some are also going back to mid 1600's transcribed have "Mrs" infront of there names , this implies they were of some Quality ?Various documents describe them as Gentleman & gentlewoman.

  7. #7
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,494

    Default

    That title does suggest gentry but to assess how well off he was, you do need to take into account the contents of the will You need to toss all available evidence into the pot and not try try to interpret things in isolation from each other.

  8. #8
    Starting to feel at home.
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Cheltenham
    Posts
    69

    Default

    My understanding is that the differences between a 'Gentleman Farmer' and 'Yoeman Farmer' are vague and further confused by usage both over time and region of the country. The common denominator seems to be ownership of land and employment of labour to work that land, the difference being level of wealth. One might suggest that the yoeman farmer got his boots dirty everyday while the gentleman farmer left the day to day running to (what we would now call) a manager. In both cases the implication is a higher social status than a tenant farmer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: