Re: Quaker term "under care" + more questions regarding membership + more questions
- From: "Brian Austin" <Brian.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:31:40 +0000 (UTC)
I've just asked my wife, who was born a Quaker, and she doesn't know of any
"official" age. It was probably when the child was deemed able to understand
what was entailed. Again, I suspect that there was no particular age for
being a representative - it would be when you were thought able to do the
job. My mother in law was born a Quaker and has remained one all her life
but never got to be an Overseer (which I think annoyed her although I
understand why). So it's not just seniority - you have to be intelligent as
well.
Brian Austin
"Symonds" <sysite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:437A3495.5050903@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thank you, Joy, for these tips. I have received _portions_ of the minutes
> of the Meetings, but none of them mention his wife. However, there is
> little doubt that she became a member probably along about the same time
> that he was admitted. I found out yesterday that she is buried in a Quaker
> cemetery.
>
> I am now wondering about the age at which a child could become a full
> member, and also at what age a member was able to represent his Meeting at
> other Meetings. Could it have been as young as thirteen?
>
> Marilyn
>
>> In general, a wife would request membership separately from her husband
>> when and if she felt "led" (Quaker term) to do so on her own.
>>
>> The fact that they were possibly members of the local parish church prior
>> to coming the Friends Mtg. may have had something to do with the husband
>> being "under care." Friends would have wanted him to be sure he was
>> ready to give up that membership and to be sure that his wife would not
>> be obstructive in any way.
>>
>> If you can get microfilm of the actual proceedings of the Men's Meeting
>> for Business for those months, there may be some clues. Women had their
>> own Business Mtgs. and would have dealt with the wife's desire to join,
>> assuming she did apply. (No longer separate today, but would have been
>> then).
>>
>> Joy Weaver
>> (Co-Clerk, Conscience Bay Friends Mtg, in USA)
>>
>> Symonds wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, James, very much for this explanation. Further questions:
>>> this couple was married in 1801 in the parish church before application
>>> for membership in 1804. When this man applied for membership, was his
>>> wife then similarly "under care"? And was the family admitted to
>>> membership, or just the husband?
>>>
>>> Marilyn
>>>
>>> James D. Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> There will probably be others on this newsgroup better qualified to
>>>> answer this, but here is my understanding.
>>>>
>>>> When applying for membership of the Religious Society of Friends
>>>> (Quakers) the normal practice was (and as far as I am aware still is)
>>>> that the applicant is visited by two Overseers - longstanding members
>>>> of the society, there are few paid workers in the Quakers - to ensure
>>>> that the new person was in sympathy with the ethos of the society. They
>>>> would report back to the Monthly Meeting (the main Meeting of the
>>>> group, meeting weekly for worship and monthly for business). Three
>>>> things could be decided at that meeting. The applicant could be
>>>> welcomed into membership, rejected (very unusual!) or asked to continue
>>>> attending under the supervision of the Overseers. I would assume that
>>>> this last is what meant by the case quoted. In 1804 this might simply
>>>> be that the Overseers felt the person needed further guidance before
>>>> taking the step of membership.
>>>> Incidentally Quakers do not take votes in their meetings - even
>>>> business meetings, those attending have to come to agreement. I am not
>>>> sure if this is democracy, but it does make for strength and unity in
>>>> the group!
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Symonds" <sysite@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: <GENBRIT-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 11:49 AM
>>>> Subject: Quaker term "under care"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is the meaning of "continued under care" in the case of a man who
>>>>> applied in 1804 to become a member of the Quaker Friends Meeting in
>>>>> Nottinghamshire in 1804? Apparently after some months he finally
>>>>> became a member.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marilyn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==== GENBRIT Mailing List ====
>>>>> Other UK mailing lists for regions & subjects:
>>>>> http://www.genuki.org.uk/indexes/MailingLists.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ==== GENBRIT Mailing List ====
>> GENUKI contents :
>> http://www.genuki.org.uk/contents/
>>
>>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Quaker term "under care"
- From: Symonds
- Re: Quaker term "under care"
- From: "James D. Thomas"
- Re: Quaker term "under care" + more questions regarding membership
- From: Symonds
- Re: Quaker term "under care" + more questions regarding membership
- From: Joy Weaver
- Re: Quaker term "under care" + more questions regarding membership + more questions
- From: Symonds
- Quaker term "under care"
- Prev by Date: Re: Ancestry site - what am I allowed to access?
- Next by Date: Re: St.Georges Hanover Square
- Previous by thread: Re: Quaker term "under care" + more questions regarding membership + more questions
- Next by thread: Re: Quaker term "under care" + more questions regarding membership + more questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|