Show Posts
1
Armagh / Re: Armagh Early 1800s
« on: Sunday 19 March 06 21:16 GMT (UK) »
No
All land was held either by rich landowners or the crown
The papers you mention are probably lease or tithe documents. They will show the owner of the land and the amount of rent or tithe to be paid. Some show voting records too.
Where George 3rd is mentioned it means the crown are the title holders. Sometimes there is confusion because the land has been sublet
The landholders who arranged to rent large tracts of land and then sublet to poorer (often catholic) tenants were hated by the local population.
When a lease was taken you could name 3 other people who were entitled to farm the land until they died. The land then reverted to the owner. It was common to name your youngest son so that the family could hold on to the land as long as possible. When they died however the family would be forced out and that is probably the reason your ancestors left.
All land was held either by rich landowners or the crown
The papers you mention are probably lease or tithe documents. They will show the owner of the land and the amount of rent or tithe to be paid. Some show voting records too.
Where George 3rd is mentioned it means the crown are the title holders. Sometimes there is confusion because the land has been sublet
The landholders who arranged to rent large tracts of land and then sublet to poorer (often catholic) tenants were hated by the local population.
When a lease was taken you could name 3 other people who were entitled to farm the land until they died. The land then reverted to the owner. It was common to name your youngest son so that the family could hold on to the land as long as possible. When they died however the family would be forced out and that is probably the reason your ancestors left.