Transfer of Deeds to son?

[BourneGooner]

Hi All,

I have a question that's puzzling me at the minute, and hope to get other opinions etc. on. Here goes, on the wife's side of the family a particular "legend" that others keep citing is an extract from some deed as follows:

"Alexander Lock carpenter of Rhyall in the County of Rutland, held a continuance of lease dated 7th January in the Six and Thirtieth year of the reign of the Sovereign Lord Charles the Second of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Defender of the Faith, in year One thousand six hundred and eighty four giving right to sell Cattle in the street in Stamford Linc."

My problem is I've never been able to find a copy of this deed anywhere or any information relating to it's supposed existance and when I ask if others have any info on it I get a blank.
Another problem with this is that the Alexander Lock mentioned above was baptised in 1679 in Langtoft Lincs. Even if I say Alexander was a couple of years old when baptised from the date of the deed that would still make him less than 10 years old. My question therefore is, is this actually possible for someone so young to be granted such a deed, I know his father died in 1682 so could the deed have passed from father to son, or is that just wishful thinking.
Hope this makes sense and someone might have an answer or opinion all gratefully received

BourneGooner

[fastfusion]

leaseholds or title  equals  what is known as 3 lives or as  we know it  99years,
it does not matter to whom or how old the title is passed,
there was probably an assumed executor that saw all was done in a lawful manner.

the transfer of estate all therein included in this case livestock,    so provision is assumed that the son has to have provision for food and costs of the estate.
so yes  a lad selling cattle at such an age is more than feasible especially is there siblings or ailing family members..... one wouldnt want  the lad to end up impoverished so the father made provision....

[GFHWP]

 Your legend states that Alexander held the continuation of a Lease dated 7/1/1684. As you do not know his age when baptised it is likely he was a minor at the time of the grant of the Lease in which case it would have been granted to someone else. Later on, (after 1805?) Alexander received the continuation.
Your main problem as I see it is that you do not know the property to which the Lease relates and without this it would be extremely difficult to track down.
An additional problem is that you only refer to the right to sell cattle.  Whilst this right might have run with the property ownership, it may also have been just that – a right to sell cattle, in which case it would have been a Licence not a Lease.

[mazi]

I think its possible that this is a document transfering the right from al.lock's father to his son.
 
what is interesting is the dates, king charles 2 was crowned in 1660 and died in 1685, so was king for only 25 years, the deed says in the six and thirtieth (36th) year of his reign, however charles 1st was beheaded in 1649 so a good royalist would say that charles 2nd reign began the day his father was beheaded, conveniently ignoring the civil war.
 
any original would likely be in latin according to the national archives and be a vellum scroll with royal seal, obtained by the lord lieutenant of rutland  (in exchange for a suitable gift )  giving the right to deal in cattle in Stamford market.
 
your family legend may be true  , or invented by a very good historian
 
mike

[fastfusion]

very good mazi

[mazi]

the city I live in has a charter granted by richard the first in 1189, the original is available to view.
it is on vellum with the royal seal and is big

[GFHWP]

Mazi is correct but it is not just the loyalists who would have it this way as the rules of succession would have allowed Carles II to become king on the death of Charles I.
He was not allowed to rule though until the republic, under Cromwell, came to an end.
For all intents and purposes then he reigned for 36 years which is why the document gives this period.

[BourneGooner]

Haven't been on here for a few days but many thanks for the replies. It gives me hope that such a deed may indeed exist, now just to find it!!
The dates did confuse me a bit with the length of reign of Charles II, but after a bit of research I found that his reign was eventually taken from the death of Charles I as you say Mazi seemingly ignoring the fact that Cromwell ever took over and the whole civil war forgotten at least as far as reign of monarchy was concerned .

Makes you wonder if "they" have ever tried to rewrite history and ignore other major events in history that simply didn't fit in with peoples ideas.