Page 121 9. Children. Children are not easy to find in records. Apart from their baptism in Cropredy the majority do not surface again, unless in the vicar's Easter lists when they reach eighteen, or else at marriage. As children they were part of their father's household and could not be taxed or made to pay tithes. The fatherless children had more chances if he left a will and a mother to care for them. The poorer children might become a charge on the parish, or like the Haddocks [17] be forced to leave once the father was no longer working for the farmer who sublet them the cottage. They may have gone to their mother's parish. Children in Holloway's time are not recorded as backhouse boys or young maids in any other house except his own, yet we know children were out earning a wage. Apprenticeship could begin early, but mostly from fourteen upwards. Pupils after petty school became serious students from the age of eight, using it as part of an apprenticeship to their life's work. In inventories children's goods are merged with the head of the household. Even their clothes are never given for they own nothing except it be put out to interest on their behalf. A few of the wills have fortunately left some details. Rechard Howse and his sister Margaret [28] we saw had stock, but the son's childhood stopped with the death of his father (p71). Just a few children were left items of furniture and more rarely a workbox or a cushion, but never a tool like a spinning wheel. A daughter would not want to be reminded that she might have to remain a spinster. It has been said that childhood was grim for this period. Masters worked apprentices for long, hard hours with few comforts. The evidence may be strong for this as powerful men could always terrorise a helpless child. A few children may have been left to "run free," but the protestant fear of original sin and the devil ruining their will, gave parents a determination to make their children obedient. Many masters must have treated their apprentices fairly and parents would tell their children to treat them with respect (p132). The type of advice given for the perhaps unruly George Tom's upbringing came from only one local will (p131). Overseers of the Poor forced to take their turn in administrating the paupers in their parish might expect even a three year old child to begin making some contribution towards their keep. Cropredy relied upon donations, but a poor rate was later to become a necessity. In a rural area like Cropredy with only a few without land or a cow, the poor were a few orphans, the elderly and the sick. Parents with a small-holding would require work from each child according to his age. Collecting only goods that were absolutely necessary for the stock, or for gaining a corn harvest and processing the products, governed mens lives from their first job as corn scarecrow or minder of stock. Their children, without being allowed to question their father, were not "slaves" for parents were giving them essential lessons in survival, learning tasks as an apprentice at home before becoming servants to equip themselves for their own house -holds. Meanwhile their contribution or absence was of the utmost importance to the survival of their own family. To be released for education meant a sacrifice to the whole household, but they did send a younger and more rarely the eldest boy to school. At first those who could attend school and reach a sufficiently high attainment could find work away from the land. As more attended school these posts naturally became scarcer and the pressure to excel would fall harder on the boy. Page 122 Very few girls attended the petty schools and none went to the grammar at Williamscote in the sixteenth century nor the seventeenth. If the father was a day labourer with a little land then the family had the cow and most of the strips of arable to tend, besides collecting fuel and earning what they could from spinning, or taking on temporary work. The more skills a child could learn the easier their life would be. Always was this fear of a child slipping further down towards poverty and for his own good he must obey the head of the household. The future environment for children began even before the marriage of their parents and was subject to which king or queen was on the throne. It depended on whether a catholic governed the country or a protestant acted as supreme head of the church in England. A proposal of marriage was more binding before 1590 than the marriage itself and it was only after the protestants began to preach on the sanctification of marriage in the late sixteenth century that the presentments for sexual relationships prior to marriage were increased in the church courts (p27). The majority of couples in Cropredy had their children after marriage. In spite of the threat of being presented and punished at the church courts some continued with the custom of believing the marriage contract gave them the right to premarital relationships as John Orlege and Joan had done (p104). Once a marriage was arranged at a spousal it meant the couple might meet without a chaperone. An exchange of vows before witnesses was legally binding even without a clergyman. There were obviously occasions when a couple had fallen in love and their marriage was to be blessed with children rather abruptly. In a sample of twentyfour marriages one in eight had a baby within the next four months. Altogether fourteen had their first child within twelve months and the remaining couples had theirs during the following three years. Over the country as a whole "about a fifth of all brides were pregnant by the time they got married in church" [Ingram Martin Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England 1570-1640 p157. 1987 Cambridge University Press]. In 1604 a canon insisted marriages took place between the hours of 8 am and 12 noon after three successive readings of the banns in church. A clergyman must be present at the wedding and any bride under twentyone needed her parents consent. The catholics had insisted upon a clergyman being present as early as 1563. It could be that the Cropredy churchwardens knowing that the couple did marry left well alone, not wishing to draw attention to them. If the apparitor of the church court heard of such children conceived, or born out of wedlock then the churchwardens would have to present the parents. In spite of this up to the 1630's not all were touched by the disgrace of having to do public penance in the church. The three in the sample escaped. Up to the 1630's the full penance was not expected providing the couple confessed in private to the minister, yet other offences still required a church penance. Those who were caught in the mesh were those whose partner vanished leaving the girl to pay the price. In 1576 a statute had been passed which allowed the Justices to order the parents to maintain their children and at the same time order them to be punished. Legislation was finally achieved by 1610, and after this the woman could be confined to a house of correction for having a bastard child which was chargeable on the parish. This was after Annes Truss and Judyth Robins had been presented "for incontynency [and] have penytently performed the penaunce in the parishe church of Cropredy..." (p27). The atmosphere can be felt. Annes' child Dorothy Truss [33] was baptised on the 4th of June 1606 and Annes was presented on the 13th of February following. By 1613 Annes was in Ireland and her daughter with her grandfather (p85). Did she ever return? Page 123 Judyth Robins disappeared [Banbury Peculiar 159 vol X. O.R.Soc. Houlbrooke R.A. The English Family 1450-1700. Longman 1984. p82/3]. It was noticed that no Cropredy man was presented for these offences, although he could be. In 1609 the two Bourton churchwardens were vigilant in proving bastardy and made sure additional notes were added to the record of baptism. Two Bourton children after being baptised had "begotten in fornication on the body of his wife" written below. Admittedly one couple were only married less than a fortnight before. The other couple had married elsewhere. Neither appear to be presented at the church court so perhaps they had paid a fine instead. The Revd William Whately of Banbury advised mutual understanding over the creation of children, and for couples to offer prayers and thanksgiving together [Whately W. A Bride-Bush 1617 p44]. Some believed that the wife's womb had a will of its own, so that she was entirely at its mercy. Men suggested reasons for the ailments of the womb, but none listened to a woman's verdict which from experience differed from physicians still practicing ancient Roman remedies. The catholics had tended to praise chastity, but the protestants felt a woman must enjoy the act of creation in order to conceive. What we do not know is to what extent the fear of childbirth worried the young mothers. Women may have thought it defying nature to try and prevent a conception, or even to want to space their children, but women must have worried about the dangers. John Hunt [16] was afraid for his daughter who was pregnant "if god gyve her life, but yf she dye of childbede..." but he goes no further as the will was not the place to express his fears. Women made potions from herbs to help the poor as well as being licenced as midwifes. In 1726 Bridget Kirby from Cropredy was granted just such a licence:
When a couple had their first child would it be the wife's policy to keep on breast feeding to hopefully delay the next pregnancy? How much depended on the husband's attitude and their knowledge of such matters? On a tight income did they try to space out the children? If every boy and girl were to be carefully provided for to the best of the parent's ability, then the eldest would not be able to take over before the youngest had been settled either into an apprenticeship or with stock, goods and money whichever was going to be provided at eighteen or over. Poor years and sudden death could upset the whole process, but widows were expected to be able to carry on providing until all had left and the eldest son was then about the age of twentyeight or nine (p108). Ideally the family had only about eleven years from the birth of the eldest son to the last child's arrival if the latter was to reach eighteen before the eldest found a wife. Good intentions to follow ideal customs might fail due to extra long marriages, epidemics cutting others short, and early marriages of the eldest son. Too many children meant depriving them of essential attention. It was exhausting to have too many children over a long period, but more so to have them in a very short period, carrying and breast feeding until the mother was dangerously weakened and possibly dying. Would the mother try and avoid being at the end of a pregnancy when the cow was dry, greens finished and no fresh eggs? Page 124 Her health if poor would naturally lessen the chance of the babies survival until the summer months brought in a better diet for the feeding mother. A baby carried through the summer might be stronger at birth but then have to contend with the winter ahead. Surely a husbandman or shepherd who set great store in the breeding of good stock and setting aside more fodder for the expectant animal, would realise the importance of keeping back a cow to provide a late autumn supply of milk for the feeding mother? Did Parents Space out the Birth of their Children? The spacing of all the children baptised at Cropredy can be worked out by using the family trees provided in Part 4. A few examples are given here: Dorothy Vaughan at [23] was four and a half months pregnant when she married Ralph Wells and moved into her father's cottage next door [22]. Dorothy was then twentyfour years old. She presumably fed the first and second babies for over a year each, but died two years after the third was born, possibly from childbirth. Dorothy was then only thirty years old. William Watts [27], weaver, and his wife Annes nee Lumberd had seven children over nineteen years and the youngest were not settled when Thomas the eldest son married. They were spaced from thirtytwo to fourtyseven month intervals which gave Annes a chance to breast feed the babies for over two years. In contrast Thomas and Alyce Howse next door had five children born over eight years and only the two youngest could have been fed for more than a year for they came at 11, 14, 15, 21 and 25 month intervals. Each baby must still be at the breast when she again became pregnant. The father Thomas was only thirtyfive when he died in 1617 [28]. Rychard Rede [32] and his wife Anne Bartlett had two children, the first after three years and the second three years later. They were married for thirtyone years even though Rychard was thirty when he married Anne. Next door at Truss's [33] John and his wife Alice Steele produced their first child just three months after they were married in 1582. We do not know if they had a legally binding marriage contract before the church wedding. All their six children had at least nine months and at most fifteen months of breast feeding. The Truss's were married for thirteen years, but then Alice died and John married Isabell Lumberd who brought up the children. Alice Hunt married Valentyne Huxeley [36] and she could have fed the first two babies for fifteen months and then after the third was born there was a gap of over three years before the fourth child arrived in June. Alice did not survive. Valentyne married Jane Watkins the following April for he needed a full time mother for the children while he was out tending the flock of sheep. Edmund Tanner's [39] first wife Isabell Lamprie bore him no children over thirtyone years, then exactly three months after Isabell was buried this mercer, now in his mid-fifties, married Constance Tustin. Edmund must have been proud of their three daughters, though one died, but what joy when two sons followed. Edmund junior was born in 1622 after seven years of marriage. The length of time his wife was able to feed them increased from eleven to fourteen months and then nearly two years. In 1630 after fifteen years together he died in his early seventies leaving her with five children who were soon to gain a stepfather. Sadly their mother was not long for this world. Once again proving that late marriages severely lowered the children's prospects of a good start (p115). Page 125 Long gaps between children might mean a baby lost, or the family were ill fed and struggling to feed those they had by keeping the youngest breast fed. Starvation however was not the case for the gaps in Nicholas and Martha Woodrose's [8] children for they farmed three and then four yardlands. The main problem with looking at a town with only sixty households was the smallness of the sample especially for the large spread out families. When a man married earlier than twentynine as Thomas Devotion and John Hunt do, their families of nine children were spread out over twentyfour and twentysix years which could have upset the next generation's chances especially in the difficult 1620's and 1630's. As the eldest son George Devotion (1597-) never married he carried on caring for his siblings. Although John Hunt was able to marry at twentyfive, after his father died, he was left with the responsibility of paying the legacies to his five siblings (all under twentyone). In spite of this his wife Elizabeth, who was unusually three years older than him, gave birth to nine children over the next twentysix years. Each baby being able to breast feed for up to two years or more as there were 30:42:61:41:38:28:29:31:32 months between births (there could have been a miscarriage between the second and third. The rest survived). Thomas Sutton [42] in two marriages over twentyone years had seven children, Rawlins [45] in two marriages had eleven children over twentyeight years and the Whytes [46] next door had nine over eighteen years. Only the Hunt family remained of the larger families. For generations the Hunt's had leased one of the top farms using all their skills to keep ahead. Younger sons also strove to get a glazier and plumbing business going and succeeded. This allowed them to stay on in Cropredy. By spacing the children they appear to manage with four or five at home. Was there instilled in all women a sense of failure if few sons, or worse, no children arrived or survived? In the Gybbs [25] family a tendency to conceive twins who died left the poor mother almost constantly pregnant in the desire for a surviving son (p563). Theirs was one of the wealthiest farms, but a wet nurse would hardly have been entertained and that was not likely to be the cause in this rural town of babies dying. The holdings could not always support all the relations. The eldest must go out to work, or else endanger the survival of the younger children. Craftsmen might need to send them out on poor harvest years, but labourers without land needed to turn the children out much earlier. Those with a cow were certainly marginally better off. The Normans and Hudsons [48] do not appear to rush all the children away even though a large family with the help of only one cow would be difficult to feed. They crush into one timber cottage and give board and lodging to several relations (p381). By putting first Anne Norman on the copyhold and then her niece, Mary Hudson (ten years younger than the eldest child William) it gave her mother Elizabeth and aunt Anne time to grow old, before Mary would marry. At that point an entry fine would be payable for the husband to secure his entitlement to the copyhold in the event of Mary's early demise. Widowers we saw often marry again to have someone to bring up the children. Ralph Wells was unusual in remaining a widower and taking on the raising of his children. Second families and step mothers could be more traumatic for children and commoner than divorce to-day (p117). The College Manor court would honour the first families rights, but any upsets amongst the siblings the father would have to sort out. Page 126 Children in Single and Step Parent Families. The whole town was searched to see which households, who appear in the vicar's lists, had children with only one of their own parents alive, or both dead. In the sixty households mentioned in the 1613-24 lists twentyseven had lost at least one parent: In 16 out of 27 the fathers died leaving children 14 and under. In 9 out of 27 the mothers died leaving children 14 and under. In 2 other families out of the 27 both parents had died. After the death of the sixteen fathers only five of their widows remarried leaving the rest bringing up their children in Cropredy. Of the widowed fathers six remarried, but two decided not to and the third left. It was more complicated than that in some households such as the Howse/Pratt/Howse family [24]. The siblings came from two mothers and two fathers as first the widower then the widow remarried (p556). A sixth of all families had a step-father and a quarter of all households had a single parent (thirteen), or other relative (three) bringing up the family. The twentyseven households have been divided into two groups, because of the huge increase in these families at the turn of the century. There were thirtythree children affected in 1603, but never more than seventeen in the second group from parents mentioned in the lists. The first group was taken from 1595 to 1609 and the second group from 1610 to 1630. In the first group there were three step-fathers and five step-mothers looking after the children and in six of these families step siblings arrived. Six widows and two widowers remained single parents. In the second period up to 1630 one father left leaving grandma to rear the children, one remarried providing a step-mother and two widows also remarried. A brother and a married sister provided support in two parentless households and the rest were five widows who did not remarry. Nine fathers died in each group. Seven mothers in group one, but only four in the second. Although almost the same number of each sex remarried there were more women not remarrying (eleven to two) than men due to the higher death rate of their husbands. Numbers of children 14 and under with one or both parents dead, 1596 to 1609.
Page 127 Numbers of children aged 14 and under with on or both parents dead, 1610 to 1630.
Between 1610 and 1629 fewer parents died, but the numbers rose again from 1630 leaving fifteen or more children from three families. Whatever happened their chances in life were severely reduced and their relations, or parish authorities might apprentice them to someone outside their town. Starting out to work at a reasonable age of fourteen or over diminished with each parent lost. One parent families must rely upon the older children's help with the younger children, but most children fulfilled this duty at some time in their young lives. Born to Leave. How many of those born in Cropredy must leave? A list was made of every household touched by the Easter lists. The time from the first to the last baptism of their children was found and the total given of known children from the registers and wills. Several queries arose over particular individuals, not all left at once and single adults might stay on and on. The numbers who left and those who died are sometimes confused by absent burials and lack of wills for some households. Page 128 How many of those born in Cropredy had to leave and how many stayed?
Page 129 In the families mentioned in the lists twentyeight of their children die under five years and thirteen more died before they reached fifteen years. Two more were registered in the burial book between fifteen and twentyone and four more in their twenties. Two hundred and eightyseven could have survived out of a total (registered and mentioned in wills) of three hundred and thirtyfour. Some however had to be left out of the above table due to problems for example when children who had no burial were left out of wills. The families span from 1572 to 1633 and of their daughters a hundred and sixteen leave, both single and married. Ninety sons departed. Sixtytwo children remain, of these thirtyone stay to become head of the household (twentyfour elder sons, seven younger sons). Eight daughters marry and their husbands become the head of the household. Seven bachelors remain waiting to marry a widow? Five daughters were fortunate enough to marry a Cropredy townsman, who was not a relation. Three spinsters remain, Anne Sutton was one because she was not allowed to marry, Anne Norman had a life on the copyhold and Alyce Elderson may also have had her rights to stay. A fourth Em Devotion returned and remained in her brother's household. Of the thirtytwo girls who became eighteen either just before, or during the eight years of the lists fifteen were at home for one or two years, then three married and left. Seven spent three or four years, one managed five and four had six years at home. Three paid seven Easter oblations and two were at home all the time. Page 130 Four families left Cropredy. Handley's [12] and Kynd's [31] left their farms for reasons unknown, except it is possible they could no longer renew their lease. Had Richard Kynd been excommunicated from the church? The Haddock's [17] could not stay in a tide cottage once the father had died or left. Bayley's [19] may have moved on from a cottage to a leasehold farm in another parish. After 1624 it is very difficult to establish who remained in the town. Three single females may remain intermittently and four other males stay to sign the 1641 list, but we do not know for how long they stay at any one time. Neither do we know of the percentage of households from which children would be only too glad to escape, never to return, or the reverse where parents gave them a warm welcome home. Out of every six children born it was possible that: just under one would die, four would leave and just over one stayed permanently. Using the registers is the only way to find out approximately how many children lived in Cropredy. Between 1614 and 1624 they increased from about eightyeight to around a hundred and thirtytwo living in the town. Below are the figures of children taken from the registers and calculated to be on the twentytwo farms in 1624 (remembering that those over eleven years might work away for a few years, though many return), and all would still be the parent's responsibility:
Even if the twelve to seventeen year olds had left home to train on a similar farm in another parish, it is just as likely the Cropredy farms also gave board and training to a similar number up to sixteen, and paid wages to those who were seventeen, making the total very uncertain. Children up to eleven may work for others, but returned home at night. Others would be attending the Williamscote School and staying at home until they left for an apprenticeship like Walter Gorstelow, or to university as the Holloways did. One vital aim for parents who sacrificed assets to allow a child to be educated was to prevent the landless from slipping down the ladder. Ffoulkes Green at Coldwells and Manasses Plivey at Hentlows must have been encouraged by parents somewhere in their past. Both go on to lease land away from their original town. As far as we know no husbandman's son between 1570 and 1640 went on to the Inns of Court. This was reserved for sons of gentry and rich merchants who could afford the fees of £40 a year. Only Martha Woodrose's cousin John Wilmer had attended the Inns from elsewhere before coming to Cropredy [8] in 1637 (p54). Thirty craftsmens families found in the registers:
The labourers had fewer children in their families:
Page 131 The average size of the households during the eight years of the lists, if the children are included are: Farms 6.6. Craftsmen an average of 4 and Labourers 3. Any information for specific children can be seen in the family reconstitutions in Part 4. Maintenance, Education and Apprenticeship. When the vicar attended to write a will, a clause concerning the children's maintenance would be included such as "the daughters to be kept in meat, drink and apparell until honestly provided for in decent and orderly service at the charge of my executor." In 1605 William Gill of Bourton left 20 shillings a year to bring up his daughter Margaret. Presumably the girl also contributed to her upkeep [MS.Will Pec. 39/3/5]. Parents whose child was to be apprenticed to a trade would need to find a suitable household with if possible similar attitudes to rearing children. Apprenticeship was usually for seven years or more from the age of fourteen. The boys were not servants, but part of the family and their parents had often to pay a fee. The masters might be asked to discipline the boy as many came from an equally tough background. Apprentices were dressed by the new master to reflect his station in life and ideally when the term of years was finished the master craftsman had to provide clothes suitable for the young man to work as a journeymen (p133). If both the Hunt [16] parents had survived we should no doubt have seen their family coming to and fro through the list years taking turns in helping as the Gybbs [26], Watts [34] and Howses [9 & 28] did, but although the Hunt girls were old enough they do not appear in the Easter oblations and so were not at home working to provide their own maintenance. Such homes had passed to the next generation. Justinian Hunt asked that "my said daughters maye together be kept uppon this my livinge att the charges wholly of my executor in meat drinke and apparrell until they maybe honestly provided for in decente and orderly service, wch my desire ys they may be soe provided wth what speede as maye be... to every of my daughters a convenient coffer wch I gave unto them." They had to leave Cropredy to find employment elsewhere, like Joyce and Joane Watts [27], but "with what speede" surely depended on the economical state of the market, the harvests and the brother's ability to cope, as well as his young wife's tolerance. Thomas Howse [28] wrote his will in 1614 and expressed a wish that his wife Alyce "shall maytayne and keep my children with sufficient meate, drinke apparell and scolinge untill such tyme as they shall be able to gete their livings or be putt to prentice." When a widower had not the time or the inclination to remarry, he had to appoint a guardian and make arrangements for their apprenticeship in his will. It would seem John Toms in 1558 was worried about one son's behaviour and to secure his obedience to his future master, Toms made stern warnings in his will. He may advocate a hard time for George, but he does not mention whipping him into submission, instead he uses his future inheritance as a more powerful threat. "I will Nicholas Gardner to have George Tomes my sone to do him service for the space of vj yeres and to have with hym ij shepe and a calfe of vij wekes olde, a brasse pott, a pewter platter, a table and a forme and so the said Nicholas to be delivered to the sayd George Tomes the value of the same stuffe againe at the end of vj yeres which is praysed by certain honest men and if he will not be ruled by his masters his master shall kepe this stuffe awaye from him and the sayd George Tomes to have none of hit." Page 132 His other son Thomas was to go to Thomas Gardner for six years. He had two sheep, "a platter, a kettell" and the same conditions applied, but a little less fierce being: "upon his masters gentillnes and favor." He then added " I bequeath to Thomas ij borrdes to make him a table." Without a wife to see to this what else could he do? Testators nearly always name someone to be an overseer and occasionally wish one to act as a guardian (p159). Russells [13] in 1601 passed over to the vicar £6-13s-4d. "The same yearlie to be put forth for his best profitt until Thomas Denzie accomplish the age of twenty years. My wife take care at her charge of the education of Thomas Denzie until he maie honestlie be putt to an apprentice by the discretion of Thomas Holloway, whom I make govenor, or guardian over him." He left 3s-4d for the vicar. A statute of 1563 limited apprenticeships to sons of 40s freeholders. How then did Cropredy boys get placed? Had all those who wanted their younger sons to have a trade been forced to purchase freehold land somewhere just to give them this help? Wyatt the blacksmith could very well have done this. The law may have been ignored if demand for apprentices exceeded the supply of those with landowning fathers. A few families found the money to apprentice their sons to a trade after having had a few years at Williamscote school. Girls lost out on education and could afford to wait for their legacies if not allowed the choice of a trade apprenticeship. It was not surprising therefore that a man who believed in boys' education, such as Thomas Wyatt [31], left the girls until their coming of age or marriage and then gave them £10 (possibly in two stages for he leaves Margaret £4 to add to a previous £6) and concentrated in his will on the remaining sons portions for their apprenticeships. Robert and Thomas when fifteen were to receive their £10 first, followed by Michael when he was twelve. This left Elizabeth to wait four years and Isabell their last child to receive hers when she was twenty. The two older sons may already have had their money portion and were now left tools and possessions by their father. Walter Gorstelow born at Prescote manor in 1604 was a sixteen year old apprentice in London when his father wrote to counsel him about his duty to god and master. He must apply himself willingly and discharge his duty faithfully. By this time his father Richard was dying of a slow "gentle sickness" which apparently often made him weep. He was not afraid of death, but welcomed it. On the 12th of April 1621 he died aged sixtythree leaving the eldest son Richard to take over. Here was another man who delayed his first marriage until he was thirtynine and their children went on arriving into his fifties ending with twins and the death of his first wife Anne. Richard had an enclosed farm, but for some reason, perhaps his large family, he fell into debt. His second marriage when aged fiftyfive was not a good one, though it brought in a very necessary £1,000. Walter comments "it falls out often that the richest wives are not for the best, I have heard him traduced, reproached, contumeiously used and more such dirt thrown at him, from a person, that of all others should not have done it in wisdom or duty, yet he hath born it not provoking again..." bearing it as his cross. He asked the children to pray for their step-mother. All the boys having been to school, may have recorded their impressions of childhood, but only Walter's remains. Walter spent part of his life writing a book in which he tried to bring together the opposing parties in the civil war. Dashing into print as soon as the clergy were no longer able to censor the press [Gorstelow W. Charls Stuart and Oliver Cromwel United 1655 p204-8]. It would be difficult under these circumstances for Mr Gorstelow to leave the children by his first wife much in the way of legacies. He had tried to provide them with a second mother, but made a poor choice. His financial problems however may have vanished or been eased, allowing Walter to be apprenticed and all the boys to attend school. |