Apparel worn in Cropredy

In Elizabeth's reign sumptuary laws were repeated to insist that expensive materials were kept for the most important people, but merchants were increasing in wealth and determined to wear clothes they could now afford. By 1579 the first monetary concessions crept in. Clothes were no doubt used as status badges and colours played an important part. Once privileged people saw their mode of dress adorning the masses then that particular piece of costume would be despised. Costume could set up barriers between the wearer and the rest of the people.

An early law affecting clothes was one made in 1571 when an Act authorised the wearing of woollen caps on Sundays and holidays. Other attempts to boost the sale of wool came in 1622 when a proclamation announced that English cloth must be worn at funerals and as the cloth industry was still suffering in 1678 the dead must be buried in wool, or else pay a fine.

Many stated their political and religious views by their mode of dress. The statement made by a choice of clothing (rather than having to wear whatever they could obtain as the poor did) would be evident to the whole town and the wearer's point of view apparent to all the neighbours. The difference in attire of a country puritan's family who dressed very modestly and that of a man who considered clothes of the greatest importance and spent a larger proportion of his earnings on the household's apparel would be fairly obvious to all.

To find out what people wore in Cropredy, between 1570 and 1640, we have once again to turn to the wills and inventories, only to find most appraisers save space and time by putting all items of clothing on one line, called "Apparell." Only when the deceased had lived in one chamber and they needed to increase the size of an inventory, or share out the items of clothing fairly had they valued each item. When the deceased had found it desirable to dress well as Justinian Hunt [16] had with a high total of £5 for apparel in 1609, then certain special items were given individual attention. Hunt had owned an expensive "cloke" worth 10s. Only Woodrose [8] in 1628 and Robins [26] in 1631 with apparel valued at £6- 13s -4d, were higher than Hunt. About seventytwo people in forty of the houses had apparel valued in their inventories. This was two thirds of the town. Unfortunately we have no idea if these valuations included the whole of the families' clothing lumped together into one sum. There were five people whose clothes were valued at less than 10s and eleven who had an average of between £1-10s and £2. The collarmaker John Pare [58] was just one of a few who had no valuation for their apparel:

5	under 10s	= J group
11	over 10s	= I group
16	over £1	=H group
11	over £1-10s	=G group (average)
9	over £2	=F group
4	over £2-10s	=E group
7	over £3	=D group
6	over £4	=C group
1	over £5	=B group
2	over £6	=A group
	Total	=72

Lower grades would not have provided sufficient clothing to keep them warm in winter.

Thirsk found that apparel made up about 7% of inventory totals, with 12% in the north against 5% in the south Midlands. [ Agricultural Regions and Agrarian History in England, 1500-1750, 1987 Macmillan pp444-450] The percentage taken up by apparel was looked at for Cropredy. It is difficult in a small town to have enough inventories in the second stage of a mans' life to contrast with their status. When a man passed into the third stage his possessions had decreased, but his apparel will then form a much higher proportion of the total than it would have done in say his 40's. Some examples can be given to compare with a gentleman's [8]. The first four were still in active employment and aged about 60.

A list is given on page 685 for most of the inventories exhibited at Cropredy. Those inventories which must have been made for the Court of Canterbury cannot be used as none of the Cropredy ones survived the 1666 fire of London. The wills were stored separately and fortunately a few testators mention clothes, though most men were concerned about their silver or money rather than very personal belongings.

Robert Robins [26] and Nicholas Woodrose [8] were two of the best dressed townsmen in Cropredy during the first three decades of the sixteenth century, yet their apparel took up only a small proportion of their moveable estate. Robins was not alone amongst working yeomen and husbandmen who kept theirs as low as 2%, but gentlemen such as Nicholas spent up to 4%. Robins who died suddenly aged fortythree from the current fever would, if allowed, have gone on farming for many years to come, acquiring a lot more until after distributing legacies his inventory total would again have come right down. Woodrose was almost twenty years his senior, but having had a larger family of six to Robins three, he left his second wife with the youngest still only four and died still in full control.

Those who had come to the third stage and kept to one chamber had a high percentage of their goods tied up in clothes, for the rest of their former estate may have been used as legacies. Mr Francis Cartwright, gentleman, who had 100% clothing in Grade C and nothing else, relied upon Richard Cartwright [50] for all necessities. Widows in trade had to give way to a son much quicker if their husband died in middle age as the weaver Watts [27] did. He had 3% of his large estate in clothing, but his wife had 16% entirely due to their son having taken over to carry on the business.

Other widows kept up the apparel they had been used to, as Mrs Batchelor, the mother of Mrs Gybbs [25] on the High Street, appears to have done when she came to live there in her old age. The widow had clothes in the D group of over £3 like her son-in-law. While hers were 19% of her total goods his were only 1% which shows quite clearly that comparing the percentages of apparel would be worthless if there were no more details, especially in a fairly affluent area like north Oxfordshire. Each person can be looked up in their household and the situation judged according to the stage they had reached in life (Part 4). For details of apparel found in inventories see page701.

Most farming households at the middle stage in life kept to 1, 2 or 3% for clothes as part of their estate. According to their wealth they were in different clothing groups, but generally kept clothes within their means especially as they had not reached old age, but died suddenly.

Being a town of tenant husbandmen they worked out in the fields for themselves and could be said to be cautious dressers. As they rose up the scale men such as Thomas Gybbs [25], who was well dressed by Cropredy standards, had still not spent as much as his neighbour Robins [26], or even the vicar's student son. Randell [21] who had died tragically while still at Oxford, dressed as a gentleman's son. The difference again between Robins and young Holloway was that the student's clothes made up 10% of his belongings, chiefly because of the three "gownes" he wore about the college and the fact that his assets were in land and portions which were not moveable estate and therefore not part of the inventory total. Gybbs could no doubt have afforded more clothes, but it was not always wise to display wealth, unless you wished to attract the tax collector. Gybbs had avoided them by lending out money, not buying land or possessions, and thereby being only involved in local rates?

Another widow in the D group was Jone French [4] who in her late sixties had given up farming and retired to her chamber so that her total belongings were now down to £14-3s-4d, but she still dressed as a husbandman's widow having four "gonndes good and badd." This house kept up appearances for when the old widower French [4] died aged seventythree, having cared for his son's widow and brought up the grandchildren, he had left apparel worth only £2 (F group) which took up just 3.5% of the total. The grandson was to spend far more on his clothes and when he died aged only thirtyfour he was in group D.

In the more frugal household down Creampot Lane the fact that widow Watts [34] had 33% of her belongings in clothes was not proof that Anne had a large and magnificent press and coffer full of the latest gowns. On the contrary this lady having been a widow for twenty years and brought up a large family who went to school, had relinquished the farm years ago to Richard Hall and now she and half her family were ill and dying. She has just an ordinary amount of clothes, nine pieces of pewter and six of brass, her bedstead, some sheets, two hillings, a little box and 2s-6d worth of woollen yarn and the whole lot came to no more than £4-5s-2d. The reason now becomes clear why she appeared so well off for clothes. It has to be stated that she lived in her house with the family and whatever calamity had befallen them it happened while they still lived in a two and a half storey house with a chimney in the hall. It was not because she lived in a hovel. Her son Arthur also had two chambers and the hall was his, being presumed the head of the household, but he left only £16-11s when he died a week after his mother, at thirtyfive. Of the stock on the homestall shared with Richard Hall he had one cow and eighteen sheep, with no corn at all. His apparel was worth £2 in the F group and 12% of his total estate.

Richard Hall was also in the F clothes group when he died ten years later aged fiftyfour, but quite a different case to Arthur. His clothes were only 1% of his belongings. He died a yeoman still working the farm and worth over £196, while Arthur for some reason did not farm though it was his late father's house(p594).

Hentlowe next door was another who was not farming and he had clothes in the C group which were 9% of his total. John was about fifty living in one chamber with other couples sharing the house (p605).

The family shepherd Solomon Howse [9] dressed better than John Hall and shepherd Truss by having clothes in the E group. The educated Solomon, though working on the land, must have found good clothes important. John Hall [29] who had his father-in-law Lyllee's farm retired eventually, but still kept on a flock of sheep. He regarded himself as a yeoman and the balance between his dress, stock and possessions was as high as 6%. Lyllee was in the H group and Hall in the G group so in spite of the 6% they had not spent as much on clothing as some men did.

Who needed clothes of a higher order than their inputs? Charles Allen [44] did apparently. He was forty and still without much land of his own and it is thought he might work for his wife Alyce's uncle, Mr Coldwell, as bailiff and as such would need to have presentable clothes, especially if he collected the rents. He is in the D group which took up 14% of his assets. Edward Lumberd junior [14] who died not long before Charles Allen was only thirtynine, but had taken on his father's farm, fallen ill and had to recall father to carry on with the farm.Young Lumberd, another who had attended school, dressed well and was in group D. His father Edward was not so spick and span being in the F group, but then he kept the clothing down to 2% and worked hard at making the farm pay, until it passed to the daughter-in-law's new husband Nehemiah Haslewood [14].

Tradesmen had to spend much more of their money in relation to their total stock on clothing. 5 or 6% was not uncommon, but then many of their total assets were small. Tanner, Wyatt and Cross [39,31,51] were exceptions. All three had some land and this made the difference. The mercer had clothing at 2% of the total. Wyatt the blacksmith and farmer [31] spent only 3% of his money on clothes for himself.

One of the surprising things that kept coming up was the fact that labourers had more goods than expected, for they were bracketed with paupers and landless cottagers. They had to sell themselves for a wage, but knowing who was actually a full time labourer and who contracted themselves out part-time is impossible to tell. Ffendrie [43] must have had some trade for he is in the G group with Watts [27] the weaver and Palmer of Hello [59]. "Fenny" has 7% of his goods tied up in clothes and Thomas Palmer senior [59] 5%.

John Cross's wife Gillian had died just before he did from the same cause and her clothes were included in his inventory, but as a separate total. Some more were added from a chest in the parlour. This brought the family into group C. In Great Bourton Alice Wallis the blacksmith's wife did not have her clothes in his inventory. His were valued at £4. When she died hers were worth £2-18s. He disposed of most of his assets, but not to the wife. His apparel was only a 25th of his total, whereas hers was a 12th. Alice's goods having been reduced to a widow's third [MSS Wills Pec.54/1/48, 54/2/28]. [Continued on page 686].

The diagram below is to show the age group at death and the different groups (p681) of clothes. The percentage was for their apparel out of their total moveable estate:

House	Name	% of Inv.	Group
	Under 30 years
[50]	Sheeler	5	G
[14]	Lumberd Jnr		D
	30 to 40 year old
[60]	Suffolk	1	J
[40]	Ladd	6	J
[56]	Wood	6	I
[59]	Palmer Jnr	3.3	H
[34]	Watts A.	12	F
[4]	French	3.5	D
[44]	Allen	14	D
	40 to 50 year old
[24]	Howse	4	H
[48]	Hudson	12	H
[24]	Pratt	5	G
[31]	Kynd		G
[34]	Watts R.	2	F
[33]	Truss	1.5	F
[28]	Wd. Howse	3	C
[26]	Robins	2	A
	50 to 60 year old
[25]	Wd. Gybbs	3	H
[42]	Sutton	6	H
[18]	Matcham	7	H
[23]	Vaughan	4	G
[28]	Howse	3	G
[27]	Watts W.	3	G
[43]	Fenny	7	G
[27]	Wd. Watts	16	G
[9]	Howse		F
[34]	Hall	1	F
[3]	Devotion	6	E
[9]	Howse		E
[25]	Gybbs	1	D
[51]	Cross	6	C or D
[35]	Hentlowe	9	C
	60 to 70 year old
[48]	Norman	5	J
[34]	Hanwell	2	I
[38]	Elderson	3.5	I
[55]	Bokingham	?	I
[45]	Rawlins	10	I
[15]	Wd.Toms	7	H
[33]	Truss	4	H
[3]	Devotion	4	H
[29]	Hall	6	G
[39]	Tanner	2	F
[2]	Lucas	9	F
[16]	Hunt	2	E
[3]	Wd. Devotion	6	E
[25]	Wd.Batchelor	19	D
[4]	Wd.French	25	D
[31]	Wyatt	3	C
[16]	Hunt	2	B
[8]	Woodrose	4	A
	70 to 80 year old
[49]	Cox	6	I
[28]	Denzey	6	H
[26]	Robins	1	G
[4]	French	3.5	F
[14]	Lumberd	2	F
[29]	Lyllee		H

Tradesmen would have more household goods in the final total as they usually had only one cow and no other stock. Though Palmers [59] are the exception with several cows. The poorest were the whitbaker old Hill [20], young James Ladd [40] and old Norman [48]. These three with Wallsall the blacksmith [13] have the worst collection of clothes: Wallsall and Ladd's at 5s, Hill [20] and Norman [48] at 6s-8d. The most astonishing of all was Suffolk's [60] who had the small farm at the top of Hello below the churchyard. How did he come to have only 6s-8d worth of clothes, the price of a good ewe? Admittedly Holbech is a trifle harsh at judging the value of his goods, putting old before many articles. Poverty was hardly a disgrace in hard times, but perhaps after Widow Rose [60] died he let the old horses stay on being unashamedly fond of them. Or did he on the other hand work them although blind and lame? He too had clothes worth 1% of his total of £37-14s-11d. Clothes may have been unimportant to him, or his family had to come first.

Sheeler [50] as a shepherd and still a servant had 30s worth of clothes like many others including Pratt [24] a husbandman and Widow Alyce Kynd of Creampot Lane [31].

Prices of goods were rising. The lowest to highest apparel was looked at from 1570. The highest values of apparel sank in the 1590's and stayed fairly low until after 1600. They had risen to over £6 by 1630.

The household clothes were as good as the wife's ability with the needle, unless they could afford the services of Thomas Sutton [42] or Thomas Matcham [18] the tailors. The wife must provide sufficient spun thread for the weavers at Hunts [5] or Watts [27]. Once woven and paid for it might have to go to Robert Lord at Lower Cropredy mill [1a] to be fulled as Mrs Cleredge's had, for she died with "A gown cloth...that is at the fullers" [E.Cleredge 20th July 1607 Great Bourton P.C.C]. Only on return from the mill could the mistress set about making an article of clothing for whoever in the household needed it.

The first task was to sow her seed and in this period it was expected that one rood (a quarter of an acre) of flax should be sown for every two yardlands giving Cropredy about seven acres. They harvested the flax in June. This was grown for linen thread which came from the inner fibres of the stem. These could be drawn out and twisted into one long continuous thread which was strong enough to be woven into cloth.

The plant was pulled out by the roots and their valuable lin-seeds shaken out and collected. After which the plants were gathered into small bundles and soaked in water. Not in the river Cherwell if they wished to escape a fine at the manor court. Where then could they soak it? Possibly retting ponds were specially made or else small amounts placed in stone troughs? Fermentation of the plant began in the water softening the outer material which was not required. Once soft the bundles were lifted out and spread on the ground to dry in the fresh air after cutting off the roots, unwanted leaves and small stems.

The next task was done sitting down and women skutched the stems by hand. This was a process to thoroughly clear away the outer membrane and the short useless veins from the leaves. For this task they needed some sharp toothed combs of various sizes starting with a coarse one and finishing with a fine comb. The inner fibres were then straightened out and laid in one direction ready for twisting into thread. They now had a fine silky appearance.

At home some had a distaff, which was a round rod between fifteen and eighteen inches in length. The flax was tied onto one end and the rod held under the left arm pointing forward to allow both hands to draw out the thread and rotate the spindle. The flax was wound on only loosely in such a way that the fibres could be easily drawn out and twisted by the left hand of the spinner into a thread which was then hooked onto the top of the spindle rod and spun round. The spindles were made of metal or wood. This thin rod between six and ten inches in length had a round weight attached at one end and a hook or notch at the top.

The spinster drew out the flax to the thickness required, twisting it into an even thread without detaching it from the distaff. Once the spindle was full then the thread had to be broken and another empty spindle attached to the distaff's thread. Those who had spinning wheels managed to produce the thread much quicker. They would soak the linen in barrels and pour on a strong lye. The lye might be made from rainwater, wood ash and urine. After soaking the linen was repacked and fresh water run through the barrel. It was spread out to bleach and dry so that it turned from cream to white.

The shearing of the sheep began in June after which the wool for spinning had first to be sorted from the fleece and carded. The pair of cards used were two pieces of wood each of which had one flat surface covered with tough leather into which a large number of points of thin steel wire had been very strongly and evenly fixed. A small quantity of fleecy wool was spread evenly over the steel points on one card. Each card had a straight handle and the fleecy card was held on the carder's knee with the card on the body side of the handle and the left wrist well bent. The right hand pressed the second card firmly down on the lower card and fleece and drew it back toward the body, repeating the movement. The fibres straighten under this treatment and once lifted off they are placed on the back of the card and rolled into a long light roll ready to be spun. These rolls supply the wool which must be teased out and twisted into a thread and attached to the loose spindle, or the spinning wheel. Those who wanted coloured cloth must dye a washed hank of thread according to the natural dyes available, providing the colour was allowed for husbandmen or artisans.

Cards were one of those items which nearly escape a mention. At Watt's his wool cards were valued at 1s and wool at 16s. Nuberry [8] had six pairs and Alese Howse [28] four pairs with two wheels valued all at 2s. Wallsall [13], Vaughans [23], Watts [34] and Hunts [16] each have two pairs and Suffolk [60] was the last to have one valued. Where are the rest of the cards required to prepare wool for the woollen spinning wheels? It could be that there was plenty of work spinning as a part-time employment and that the wool was combed, not carded, ready to be woven into Worsteds rather than Broad cloth which required carded wool.

The value of distaffs was too low and none are mentioned. Spinning wheels receive a better record, although fifty inventories ignore the wheels altogether, fortunately thirtysix sites have them recorded and on average they had two each. Twenty are given as linen wheels and thirteen called woollen wheels, but many do not specify.

Conspicuous by their absence are Nuberry's, Woodroses, Toms and Lumberd's [8,15,14]. Who did their spinning? Especially was it strange as Nuberry had some "herdes and thrumbs." The herdes were coarse or dressed flax. Would one of their servants bring their own wheel?

Widow Robins [26] had plenty to spin having 3 lb of hemp to add to her supply of finished yarn that was valued at 6s-8d. She left certain wool worth 11s and eight yards of woven cloth. Frenchs [4] also have seven yards of cloth and a hemp "stooke." Hunt [16] has 40 lbs of linen yarn, two cloths and three fleeces of black wool worth 12s. It was very important to have a black sheep for mourning clothes. Cross's [51] new piece of cloth was worth £1-13s-4d and his wife had wool worth 3s-4d, perhaps to knit up into stockings. Cox and Bokingham [49 & 55] have skeins, or "slipps" of linen yarn. Twelve skeins were worth 4s in 1617. French's have a "cheive" of linen and woollen yarn as well as some "ruff" [rough] hemp. Hemp is more often recorded than flax. Hentlowe [35] in 1617 had "ruff" hemp over the kitchen and 34 lbs of dressed hemp. Did he grow it in the yard as Cox did [49]? Next door to Hentlowes, Richard Hall [34] had 40lbs of rough hemp waiting attention. Hemp was needed to make the essential ropes for the farms. Some was also woven for Woodroses had hempen towells. Thrum cloths were noted at Hunts 1587 and 1609 [16], Lucas in 1640 [2] and weaver Hunt in 1647 [5].

Wool was spun and woven still with the oil intact, but this prevented the wool absorbing a dye. If a colour was desired the cloth must be cleaned and afterwards dressed by the fuller. "Woll to make her a petycott." Could this be prepared and become the red flannel so desired in a cold winter?

It was worth spending more perhaps on clothes once they lived in a warmer dry stone house under a snug roof. The kettle's steam went up the chimney and damaging mildews would be less likely to spoil cloth stored in the coffers. The low value of clothes does not always mean a poor household, or a high value a rich one and yet a low value of apparel could be caused by a poor return from the crops and this would affect the smallholder by making it nearly impossible to replace clothes on such years.

Only moveable goods worth £5 and over needed an inventory, but sometimes an argument may have arisen and an inventory been made to settle the value of goods. Articles which had only second hand value were not given the market price, but goods or stock which could be sold fresh at market would be given the current value. Perhaps to help a widow items may be marked down to give a low inventory total?

In the case of the servant Avis Gardner, who died in 1580, she appears to have insisted upon speaking her will on her death bed. Had she seen others do this? Or did Avis want to leave her best petticoat to Alice Howse in particular? Whatever the reason, the proving may have cost her master Richard [24] more than it was worth. Three people were there about her bed when she spoke her wishes. Richard and Thomas Howse and Elizabeth Rede who could have been the sister of the newly wed William, or William's wife [32]. Four weeks later an inventory was made. The vicar Holloway coming down Church Lane to their farm on the corner to help and perhaps see fair play.

The poverty of her apparel may shock us in these affluent days, but for Avis to obtain replacements of worn garments would have eaten into most of her yearly wage. She would have carefully laundered and mended them, ekeing out their life. She had no need of other goods as board and lodging were part of the wage.

What did Avis wear? Her main garment was a red "peticote" worth 3s-4d. This was a russet red rather than scarlet. That bright colour was reserved for the gentlewomen's petticoats, or to line their hoods and cloaks. To keep her warm she had a "wast cote," which could have been padded. These followed the dublet in design, but were now worn beneath other layers in cold weather instead of being an outer garment as formerly.

Smocks were the main working garment for men and women. Many rotated their three smocks (one on, one waiting the wash, one taking a long time to dry) as they were the top garment for working in the house or outside. Previously known as a chemise which the wealthier still kept hidden, wearing them next to the skin as a shirt. Theirs would be made of a finer material. If the shirts/chemises only showed at the neck, wrist or elbows the exposed parts were trimmed with lace or embroidered. To keep the sleeves clean many wore foresleeves, but only one pair are mentioned for Widow Gybbs in 1577.

Miss Gardner would put on her old "casseoke" of frese to cover her work clothes, or the best smock. The cassock was used to go to church, or about her master's business. Her other covering for her smock was of course the apron, or "napron" as it was pronounced locally at that time. Avis had a flannel one which would be a thin undyed woven tabby cloth. It was hard wearing and by wrapping it well round her added some warmth to her legs. A warmer and better apron was her worsted one, which had a patterned weave. This light weight material had not been fulled and was made from the best long haired sheeps wool. The cloth itself was first woven in the small village of Worcester near Norwich, and had become popular for its warmth. The warp and the weft had the same long combed and spun wool. It compared well with the beaten broadcloth hammered out under water at the fulling mill. For other occasions Avis had two old linen aprons, perhaps made from her own spun thread. Servants and children putting in hours of spinning on every available opportunity, especially in winter.

Sometimes and especially as evening drew near, or throughout the cold nights Avis wore her old "rayle." They were worn like a cape about the shoulders so that they might reach the waist or hip. According to your status in life the "rayle" could be made of silk, satin, holland or lawn. Miss Gardner had "seven parllets good and bad" worth 1s -8d. These were garments more for day wear for they covered the neck and shoulders. The vast majority were surely made of linen.

"Kerchefes" paid a great part in everyones dress. Either as a collar at the neck or as a shawl around the shoulders. These brightened up the day to day clothes and added warmth. Clothing could look drab made from wool which had been dyed brown to be serviceable.

Avis would always wear something on her head, usually a coif around the hair with a felt or straw hat on top. All would have a hat. Only unmarried girls could go bare headed, unless they belonged to the gentry families. Some masters paid for a pair of shoes as part of a servant's wage. A second hand pair were usually valued at two pence, half the price of the hat. The vicar paid 1s-8d for a new pair for his maid (p93). Apprentices expected to be found suitable apparel to be a credit to their master. Perhaps then the vicar must provide shoes for staff so that they did not go bare foot to church. How many poor could not go out in the depth of winter due to insufficient clothing?

Since the fourteenth century they made wooden pattens. These had a very thick wooden sole and underneath a metal ring helped to raise the wearer's foot above the mud. They were held on by straps. One has been found under the stairs at Howse's [28] farm, as yet undated.

In 1614 Thomas Holloway purchased "a skyrte smocke" for his maid Elisabeth Stacy (p97). Their "skyrtes" or kyrtells were pulled into the waist and could be pleated. Avis's master had not bought her one. Above the short kyrtell a bodice was worn and fastened either by laces or more rarely buttons (p405).

The three widows who had all kept their farms going through the 1560's left details of their clothes. Again clothing was given in much more detail when there were fewer other items. Widow's wills were often full of who must have the garments. Nothing must be wasted. Elizabeth Gybbs had not only a kyrtell, but a frocke and three "petycotes" to go under her smocks or dress. Her clothes go in threes. Three smocks for working in to save the gown and kyrtell, which were for better wear, and three aprons. Her nine "rayles" were perhaps a sign of her age. Like most people she needed a "wastcote" for warmth and a "cloke" for going about the town.

Two years later her neighbour Widow Johan Robins [26], who had kept her part of the farm going, had clothes only worth a pound, but she too had "peticotes and smockes" to dispose of in her will. One was blacke and may have been her mourning smock, presuming that widows mostly wore black. One of her "peticotes" had a "russed" body, which could mean gatherings, or lace frills. Two kerchiefs were also considered worth giving away. Widow Robins had one piece of new cloth for a gown with trimmings and one white cloth.

In 1587, ten years after widow Gybbs died, the third of these widows was Jone Ffrench [4] from down the Long Causeway. Jone's executor had her clothes itemised by the weaver Antonie Hunt [5] who lived next door. He would know to the nearest halfpenny their quality and second hand value. Jone had four "gonndes good and badd" worth £3. A lot of money. These were more than frocks. A loose comfortable garment, unboned, kept for best which could be worn at any time anywhere. A gown was a full length garment and quite open at the front. (This must not be confused with the night gown which was not worn in bed, but put on in the morning over a night smock if the gentleman or woman wanted to delay the tedious process of dressing for outside). For working Jone had five smocks, three aprons and four "petycots" for underwear. "Petycoats" were partly exposed to view and could be relatively expensive when made from good material. Two of her "kerchefes" were for her neck and still she had ten more. The total of £3-15s-4 was next to the largest one, for that time. She had retired and her moveable goods were worth £14-3s-4d. Jone did not appear to have a mantle or cloak which could cover or replace a day gown.

Widow Elizabeth Holloway [21] and widow Joanne Robins [26] both had gowns. Elizabeth still had her wedding petticoat, but recently as one of the gentry she had invested in the latest ruff. On her finger she wore the gold ring which had a gem stone. Widow Robins kept a "worester gowne" and had a "frioke" in her coffer.

One of the best dressed women, if her will is to be believed, must be Ellen Bicke who had been living at her brother Densys the blacksmith's [13]. Ellen had a "worster gownde," a best "gounde," a "kersy wascoate," blue and green "peticoates," an old red one, a woollen smock, a smock body, and three ruffes one of them with lace on. Several pairs of stockings, several aprons one of which was flaxen, and two hats. She mentions in her will lawn, holland and flaxen "crescloths." Yet where was all this when they came to make an inventory of her goods two months after her death? Her clothes then were worth 1s, or should this read "Ls" for 50s? On the other hand if Ellen was still sound in mind she could have given them away to cover the cost of her keep.

Later wills proved at the Court of Canterbury show that finer garments were to be seen in Cropredy. The widow Dyonice Woodrose [8] left in 1634 "my wrought silke grogran gowne and kirtle" to a daughter. Grogran or coarse grain was made from silk and mohair, or a kind of coarse, but strong silk. Early in Queen Elizabeth's reign Dyonice would not have been able to wear satin, damask, taffeta or grosgrain gowns. This was amended in 1580, but only for the very wealthy, but how was Dyonice in this bracket?

Her immediate neighbours to the south were the Devotions [3], where widow Alyce had farmed for many years before the Woodrose's arrived. There was a best "gowne and pety cote," so Alyce must have had at least two of each. Altogether she left 50s-8d worth of clothing, some of which was for her son William's "gyles."

By the turn of the century the appraisers were not itemising the clothes unless few other articles were left, or they had to be divided amongst several people fairly, or perhaps they were of a sufficiently high value in themselves like Justinian Hunt's cloak.

Widow Johan Toms who lived on the Green [15] wrote in her will details about the disposing of her clothes. As an old woman she may have had little left to dwell upon. The wearing linen was split between her three grand daughters. Sara Tomes, aged about fourteen, was to have her "best hatt....and my lyttell coffer." Jane to have four yards of Russett cloth " wch I now have and woll to make her a petycott.." and Ann, aged about three, to have "my best petycott... my best gowne..." Who spun the wool for the four yards of fairly coarse reddish brown cloth for the peticoat? Widow Toms may not have had a spinning wheel so who treated the fleece, carded the selected wool and spun the thread and then took it along to Newstreet Lane corner for William Watts to weave? Unless one of her daughter's took the spinning wheel away with her during her service and continued to spin for her mother? When the woven piece was collected it was worth 2s 6d a yard. How much of that was the cost of weaving it?

There are just a few wills without inventories before 1570 and these ancestors of the farmers of Cropredy had sometimes left clothes in the same way. Was it Alyce Howse nee Hitchman's [28] granny who had a best gown, "cappe" and a "derhesse" [dress] as well as a "kyrtle" cloth, the last waiting to be made up (p701)? "Kercheifs," "naprons" and smocks would be found in most women's coffers. Joan Gill of Great Bourton mentioned her " beades with a ringe collaryd," and some wives had red petticoats, a gown of frieze and perhaps a blue mantle. (p701)

Mens clothes are first mentioned in these older wills. They sometimes had "blacke cotes" or a "whyte sleevelt cote" like the one which belonged to William Carter of Creampot Lane [32]. A young Gybb's from the High Street [25] had gone to work in Great Bourton and died young. In his will he left four "cotes" and pairs of hose to various fellow workers, including his father's "shepaude" [another local word]. Hosen was usually made of wool, often coloured. They did not always have a foot, in which case a strap was provided. At the waist they could be attached to a belt by tapes with metal tipped points. Husbandmen might have leather boots made from the animal skins they had cured. Knitted stockings from their own wool and a doublet of fustian, with a canvas or frieze jerkin. Carpenters had hose and doublet, a waistcoat and a grey jerkin. The men had braies, an underhose beneath their shirt, a few became so brief and baggy they resembled shorts. Married men and women wore hats inside the house as well as out, but spinsters did not.

Men sometimes had their clothes itemised in an inventory even though the appraisers had numerous articles to get through. Ralph Nuberry who farmed the Brasenose Manor farm [8] died in 1578. He possessed two "coots." Those fairly full garments, buttoned down the front with sleeves tapering to buttons at the wrist. He owned a doublet and a waistcoat and two jerkins which were worn over doublets. Most had pleated skirts. These leather jerkins had been fashionable with the military. There were three pairs of hose to wear with his "showse" and one pair of "bote hose" when Ralph put on the "bootes." Three hats and one cape which might have a hood. His gown just like the college ones had slits for his arms and pleated shoulders. Nuberry needed bands to make detachable collars. All his clothes were valued at £4, a high total for that period.

Thomas Browne a whittawer working for Mr Pare and living in his masters house in Round Bottom [58], came to Cropredy as a widower. Thomas died in 1579 and had once worn an old "lethren dublett" over his "briches," below which he needed nether "stockens." Nether because next to the body, but in the lower regions. Thomas did have a second pair of "briches" which were of "ffrese," a thin flannel and worth 1s-8d. Three shirts, which made it possible to keep up a fresh appearance, were a short form of chemise often with a split at the front and the back, if they reached to the knee. Poor Thomas had need of a truss for a hernia which being in the leather trade he could make for himself, or know someone who would create one. Like Avis he had shoes worth 2d and a 4d cap rather than a hat. That cap may have been a flat Tudor cap with a narrow brim for these were in fashion amongst the craftsmen and their apprentices at that time. Most cottagers would wear linen caps on week days, but wool ones on Sundays as ordered by parliament. Even Sunday smocks should be made of wool.

Working out in the fields the men needed leather wherever possible for sleeves, cape and hood, with extra protection for their shoulders. They added sacks or leather below the knee to cover the top of the leather boot.

Some had fine knitted hose. At the Upper Mill Fabian Smyth in 1595 had a pair and also other "hosen." He had "forty bands and necherchief and other small line[n]s." Many preferred stockings as Thomas Browne did. These were worth 9d a used pair in 1579. The Reverend Harrison wrote that "knit hosen" was now common. The country women who were wearing them used alder bark to dye them black.

When John Kendall died no-one wished, or had the time and energy to poke too closely around, but who would purchase his goods? No values are made on them and only this note remains (p635).

Amongst his sad belongings his wearing apparel contained "bretches, a lynnen dublett, a black hatt," two pair of shoes and stockings. The linen doublet would have been close fitting with perhaps a high collar and laced down to a full hip skirt.

John Ffyfyde had a few items written separately in 1621, not a decade for taking time over lesser goods in any detail, but this was an exception:

John's "cloake" was still a fine article and the second hand value of his "shues" had trebled. Who was this man? Was he the son of a husbandman doing his apprenticeship in Cropredy? He had come with his own clothes coffer and sheets. The rest of his bed and bedding would be provided by his master or mistress. John it will be noticed was sporting just as fine a cloak as Justinian Hunt [16] did in 1609.

We can finish the mens clothes with a gentleman's list of belongings. Francis Cartwright was living in one chamber probably at the Cartwright house [50]. We have no will to see if he had any real estate. Mr Richard Gorstelow of Prescote Manor acts as an appraiser with John Hunt for Mr Richard Cartwright [50] who exhibited the inventory. It was made on the 19th of April 1640:

This man's coat worth a pound was twice the value of the husbandmens. The high value of those leather boots, equal to the price of a good ewe, gives some indication of their quality. A pair on which to fasten his spurs. The gentleman no longer owned a horse, or any other possessions. Was he Richard's father or brother?

One section of the community escapes all the records except in pictures where their clothes were smaller editions of the adults. Boys and girls wore dresses or smocks until the lads were breeched. Boys wore bonnets up to three years of age and girls up to about nine years. None of their clothes appear in the inventories, so perhaps these too were deliberately left out, or of little worth after passing from child to child?

The last reference to items of clothing must come from Thomas Holloway. There was a custom of exchanging small items of clothing as presents at the beginning of a New Year on the 25th of March (p406). Thomas and his family exchanged detachable sleeves, usually green, smocks or handkerchiefs and garnishes for hankerchiefs.

One year Thomas Gardner of Little Bourton manor sent the vicar a pair of gloves, perhaps to wear at a funeral, which is as fitting an article of clothing to leave not only Cropredy's apparel, but also this whole period of 1570 to 1640 in the life of the Town of Cropredy [c25/6 f16v].

A great debt is owed to Thomas Holloway for filling the parish chest with folio after folio. So much of this long manual has only skimmed the surface and many years have been left totally bare. Anyone lucky enough to live in one of the sixty properties which made up Holloway's town of Cropredy will still find many questions which they could usefully direct at the fabric of their building. Others will be hopefully inspired to search out answers if they live in the parish. Those who live elsewhere can also enjoy the search for visual clues around them, or documents relating to their own town, street or house.

On the top of Saint Mary's church tower it was once possible to light a beacon when a chain of fires had to be lit across the countryside to warn of approaching danger. The royalist vicar, the Reverend Edward Bathurst, was appointed in 1642 to follow the late Dr. Edward Brouncker. Bathurst could have watched the battle of Cropredy Bridge on Saturday the 29th of June 1644 from the top of the tower. Would he be able to see King Charles sitting under the ash tree on the hill to the east? As many of the parishioners would be supporting the parliamentarians under Waller this academic vicar was bound to displease a great many of his congregation. Whatever their beliefs the churchwardens and sexton Rede would soon be attending to the burial of five soldiers (without a memorial) in the churchyard below.

Looking down from the tower onto a graveyard full of people he never knew, did Edward Bathurst think of reading Holloway's folios to make fresh memorandums, or did he keep to his own books? The gravestones which were increasing in number can be traced to farms and cottages reminding us of old families and introducing the new arrivals. Many left no memorials and will need searching out in other places and documents. After a long gap during the interregnum another era in the development of the town of Cropredy can be discovered, but no other vicar stayed so long and left behind such a collection of folios which have survived and can compare with those written by the Reverend Thomas Holloway.