Page 100

Easter Oblations (3) 1617 [c25/7 f24][43 - 50] (p168).

Page 101

7. Men and Women in their Families.

The senior husband, when father and son were both married and working the land, was master of the family in that household, until the son paid the next entry fine to a new lease and a deed was made stating the position, obligations and maintenance of both parties for the welfare of all the dependants on that tenement. Chambers were allocated and the senior father held on to some assets. He might then give way to his son as master. The head of a household was technically able to make decisions without reference to other members, especially his wife who with all other women had a different role to play, but always at his command. The master's boundaries were set by the church and manor courts, failure to comply brought a fine. One example survives (p224) when the number of cows each could keep was observed by all but one of the twentytwo households. That one would have to answer to the rest at the manor court. They did not however reveal his name.

Cropredy women would have had little independence in a paternalistic society. Many believed that all women were evil and only men were good. Women were nearer the devil so that priests found it necessary to guide them from corrupting christian men. In earlier centuries this was done charitably bringing them into the church, but the fear of women's power given by the devil could lead in Europe to an innocent woman being branded as a witch and ostracised from society, or even death. A society in which they lived on the very fringe. In Elizabeth's reign English women with the power of healing and knowledge of herbs were not condemned outright, after all the majority still believed in magic and certainly in the supernatural. There were more women using plants to heal others than men. Folk medicine stretched back into the distant past. Those who had the gift often acted as the local midwife. Spinsters and widows could rely on such work to remain independent, although this was not encouraged by men if they were still young. Spinsters were also under someone else's roof. They might be blamed for bad storms, harvest failures and any sudden deaths. Worse would come if they were outspoken, for then they might be accused of having sex with the devil.

Women, servants and children had no rights at law for their fathers, husbands or masters were taken to court for any theft committed by any one of them. Most husbands were expected to govern and lead their wives. However when the witch hunts began the law had to be changed for as it stood both the man and his wife were liable to be prosecuted together and this was how in 1604 King James, who feared the power of women, changed the law making witchcraft a criminal offence if it could be proved to have been harmful. From then on it was possible for women to be criminals (in the eyes of men) separate from their masters.

Wills and inventories proved at the church court at Cropredy seldom mention the women's christian names, but there were a few exceptions. Most were referred to as widow or goodwife. Mary Hopkins of Great Bourton had been a widow for three years. Before marriage she was a Stevens marrying George in 1594. After he died in 1631 Mary kept on farming and was called Mary in her inventory. A strong character perhaps? Elizabeth Holloway in 1623 calls all her daughters by name for clarity, not as wife of their husbands. The grand daughters as children of her daughters were also given their christian names though admittedly she does not give the daughter-in-laws name when the children's father was her son Gamaliell.

Page 102

Documents dealing with men as head of the household would not need to mention his wife by name for she was as one with him. Invisible in the Easter lists the registers were fortunately there to reveal their names. Only in 1624 do three widows who were heads of households have their christian names on the list: Ann Watts [34] late wife of Arthur, Alyse Howse [28] and Mrs Elizabeth Coldwell of [50]. The other wives were just that, wives. The first name coming up the Long Causeway on Holloway's 1613 list was:

Thos devotio ux ijd

his daughter ijd [c25/7 f1]

Here lived Thomas and his wife [uxor] whose name was Em [3], with "his daughter" who is also not named for it was quite sufficient for the purpose of the list to be just the "daughter" of Thomas. Their family tree shows that Thomas had married Em Whyting [14], a Cropredy "gal" from the Green. She was born before the Holloways arrived. Devotions christened their third daughter Em in 1594. Because of the registers both women can be named. The baptisms, marriages and burials throw more light upon the family (p417). Em junior never married, but as she saved her money and legacies, increasing it by lending it to others she must make a will. If she had married her property would have passed to the husband and unless he died first she would not make a will. By 1658 her savings out on bond came to £52-15s. She lived in her own furnished chamber (possibly in George's household) which brought her assets to a total of £77-18s-8d. A large amount to leave. Samuel King may have written her will which was not proved for some years. Was there a query or quarrel amongst her relations, or just confusion due to the collapse of the church courts? It should be mentioned that Em had two unusual items: a pewter chamber pot so was she disabled in some way? The other was "one hood, fase guard and pillion cloth 6s-8d." Here was a woman able to get about on her brother's horse. Where did she ride to and who was riding with her? A spinster living in her bachelor brother's house, seemingly more in control of her situation than most, but unable due to the customs of the day to live outside a household. In this case her brother was the head, but he in turn required an assistant to run the house while he attended to the land and if she was a powerful woman and ran an efficient hearth and garden, Em may have had more influence than most, but how exceptional was she?

Single women leave so few records and Em's will is rare amongst the Cropredy archives. Daughters were trained for marriage. They had to learn to be good housewives, being taught first by their mothers and then by mistresses, while away learning the art of running a house as maid servants, or for many as outdoor servants. A few girls were apprenticed to a trade. Only gentlewomen learnt embroidery, music and dancing to please their future husbands, and even fewer learnt languages. Scholarship was not for them. Some fathers might allow girls to learn to read at the local petty school, but there was no access to the grammar and few learnt to write, or render up accounts (p152). Sir Thomas More around 1530 had advocated with the Renaissance Humanists that learning could agree equally with both sexes and many women did learn several languages from then until the 1560's. The emphasis in this patriarchal society was for women to be attractive, soberly dressed wives, not given to chatting, in fact they may not speak unless spoken to in the presence of their husband, their master. Men excused their tyranny by pointing out that Eve's downfall meant they were the weaker sex, an easy prey for the devil.

Page 103

Women were told to obey their husbands and yet at the same time all were to honour their parents. This must at times have caused confusion. The church had always insisted that a daughter must agree to marry a groom chosen for her, yet what happened if she disobeyed her parents?

Just occasionally through the writings of brave women of that time (more so from 1640-1660) comes a glimmer of what some women thought. They believed they were made from the same mould as men and god had made them both equal. One pointed out that Eve's sin was not as great as that of the men who crucified Christ. They refuted the notion that they had no soul and they wished to follow their own consciences as far as it was allowed under a queen who also governed the church. Yet there was no option once married, but to obey the husband and be a comfort to him and their children. The fortunate ones found affection and contentment in marriage. There was no doubt that many partnerships came about, even if they had not chosen each other. Those who had made a mutual contract in front of witnesses had at least taken the step themselves. A strong personality might turn the situation somehow to her advantage, though if the wife could not enjoy her prison she had silently to learn to endure it. Without education and without expectation, ridiculed by men as a creature of low intelligence, who had never had a chance to stretch it, was it any wonder many became irritable, and objects of pity. Powerful women might dominate a weaker husband and there was no doubt they existed. The second Mrs Gorstelow at Prescote manor, who had brought money into the household, also brought a shrill tongue and was not discouraged from venting her frustration against her long suffering husband in their quiet backwater. Had her first husband been more a partner allowing her to help organise his drapers business in London? How many in Cropredy managed to secure a kindly husband, a knowledge of the bible, a friendly mother-in-law, a busy and useful life before widowhood allowed her to stretch her talents to keep the household going? Women who published their poems during the interregnum (seldom before due to the church's hold over the press), speak of being a servant, or rather a slave with no authority, no liberty and no personal belongings.

The husband was allowed by law to do what he liked with his wife's dowry, though not to sell land without her consent which must go towards their children's future legacies. It has already been mentioned that custom insisted he leave a third to his widow. (This was apparently not done in all areas). Her stock, plate and household goods all become his. Those who could afford it made sure their daughters were provided for and a jointure was drawn up. This meant amongst the gentry at least that the girl's father must provide a dowry for the groom's father who then undertook to pay a yearly sum to the wife if she became a widow. Sometimes land in another parish was involved to provide for her widowhood. If Cropredy men took ill while the children were young then husbandmen and craftsmen being tenants mostly settled the younger children fairly, leaving the task to the wife or eldest son. Thomas Holloway left his daughters bonds for their marriage portion, expecting that if the husband died first the wives would have some money to fall back on for themselves and the children. John Hunt in 1587 refers back to "certaine artycles under my hand and seal dated 7th Oct" 1583 in which he had given his "natural daughter Elizabeth" £20. He adds that if she "die of childbede of this child which she now goeth with..." then her husband Robert Burbridge shall have no more than he has already received.

Those women who were taught to read and write obviously lived in a kinder family atmosphere. A place which had a petty school may have meant more sisters were able to be taught by their brothers at home. The church wardens who made few presentments may confine them to scolds.

Page 104

Such women were taken before the church court. Barbara Jackson from Bourton went too far and was presented in 1621 "for a common scold and sower of discord" (p27). Her punishment may have been a cold immersion in a cucking-stool in the Cherwell. Few women were put in the stocks for drunkeness as men were. Perhaps the husband paid a fine and spared himself the shame as well as his wife. Women either kept a low profile, or there were natural healers living in neighbouring parishes, for Cropredy women escaped the consequences of the long reign of persecution of women. The church made sure that healers were registered by making it necessary for all midwives to be licenced before a bishop (p123). (One woman had been presented but has not been researched).

Calvin had insisted that women had souls though not all men believed this during our period. Protestants were beginning to encourage women to follow their own consciences. After 1640 there were other men who at last could make themselves heard and they printed their belief that women should have rights and that there were no witches. Unfortunately witch trials went on through the century.

The bible was full of instructions on wifely and children's duties, but on the whole the bible did not help women, even though in Genesis chapter one verse twentyseven it says "Male and female created he them." Them. The church ignored this. The bible was used for all enquiries into church matters and state politics as well as all family matters, but in it women are repeatedly spoken of as inferior to men. The few exceptions in the old testament having been ironed out in translations. In church the homilies on marriage were regularly read out. This stressed that women must submit to their husbands and that they must remain modest and virtuous. From a tiny infant until burial all their training was towards obeying father or husband. Yet protestants wanted santification of marriage in which the man and wife would help and comfort each other bringing the partnership away from the catholic one of a wife's sin and old superstitions. Encouragement to read the bible within the home and to extend their role in educating the children. We've seen how fathers cared for their sons and daughters, but how did they really feel about their wives? Is there any evidence in the wills to lighten this emphasis on women as second class citizens? The situation was perhaps not as gloomy as it sounds.

Affection or Indifference?

From the married man's care of his wife and children can we say that their affection for each other was more than just a duty?

Out of thirtyone wills written for men (a quarter of which were craftsmen the rest farmers) twentyseven mention their wives by name and Thomas Gybbs [25] goes further and calls her "my loving wife Elizabeth."Thomas Holloway sometimes referred to his "weiffe" or called her "Elizabeth my wife." Mr Arthur Coldwell [50] also had a "loving wife Elizabeth." The remaining four (one craftman three farmers) engaging a scribe to write them a will refer to their married partner as "my wife." John Wilmer who died in 1655 called Marie "my faithfull and loveing wife" [8].

In 1547 a betrothal had already legally bound John Orlege and Joan together for life (p122). John the father of William had lost his first wife and had been able to find again his ideal woman. Unfortunately he fell ill and wrote in his will of 1547: "To Joan Gybbs my wiff that should have bynne iij£ for the greate love that was betwyxt us two." John died that day and their love lay shattered. Worse poor Joan gave birth to a baby girl just nine months later who was buried the following day.

Page 105

Such loves did take place and many ended not in tears, but in long marriages, like Thomas and Em Devotions. In 1630 at the other end of one such marriage Thomas Gudden of Great Bourton left his son to "plough, tile, sowe and bring home to his mothers third parte as well as he doth his own" [M.S.Wills Pec. 31/4/10]. He must not neglect her. Not all marriages were arranged by parents especially if there was no land to be gained by the union, or settlements made.

One father was very anxious about his daughter Elizabeth Robins [26] who was seventeen. In 1603 Robert charged her "to be advised by my wife and the overseers ...in her marriage." Had she shown a desire for someone unsuitable? She does not in the end get married in Cropredy as expected, but in Horley. Was this father more than usually determined to get his way with suitable matches for the children. This is an isolated example, but we do not know how many other children gave in to parental pressure being married before their father died. The church insisted the children must not marry against their wishes, but they would need the protection of their own family on many future occasions and especially if widowed. A child brought up in a particularly strict family would be conditioned to obey, unless her love for an "unsuitable" groom proved stronger. Sons could hold on and marry after the death of a strict father, but thereby shortening his own family life with his children. The start of all such hopes and the care for each other throughout life until death took one of them, comes through with Robert and Dyonice Woodrose [8]. Robert calls her his "beloved wife" leaving matters to her discretion and making her the sole executrix (p167). He had of course already divided his property with the eldest son who shares their house. She mentions Robert twice in her will for the distribution of his precious bed and belongings and still calls him her "well beloved and loving husband" seven years after he had died. Her daughter-in-law's marriage does not have such affection on the surface, nor does the widow mention Nicholas in her will (but this was nothing unusual), and Martha may have had some problems we shall never know about living under the same roof as their loving Dyonice, her mother-in-law.

What a difference in tone from Robert's will to that of Ralph Nuberry who had the manor before them [8]. He had ten children and his second wife had two of her own from a previous marriage. She has half the farm with the stepson John, but must remain a widow, or else give up her marriage goods. He tells us what these were: "the featherbed which I had with her at my marredge unto her and also I gave her a bolster, a coverlett, 2 pillowes, a payre of shets, 2 blankettes and some bedsteade which I had with her." In the inventory this gift was valued at £2-3s-4d and mentioned as the bedstead given to his wife. Least she think of departing with her own children and not undertaking the huge task left to her and the eldest son, two overseers were to "carry and drive away and dispose to the best preferment of my said children" all the goods. They were to pay the legacies and send them out adequately provided for, plus their £10. In all there were seven boys and two girls, an unborn child and her own two children. The last two must be grateful for their legacies, a sum of 13s-4d each.

Twenty husbands trusted entirely in their wife with no conditions attached (from 1592 to 1641). These were first wives whose loyalty to their own children would not be questioned. Seven had reached a stage when the eldest son was old enough to share. Twentyeight husbands leave provision for children for they were still of an age to need attention and help. Two leave provision for step-children, they too were entitled to the step-father's attention to their welfare, possibly a condition of marriage. Only five in Cropredy (1578 [8], 1587 [16], 1592 [28], 1609 [24], 1619 [21]) were stipulating conditions about remarriage and Thomas Hall of Bourton left all to his wife to bring up the children, providing she stayed a widow.

Page 106

If she remarried then only "the third accordinge to the course of the countie" went to her the other two thirds the overseers would use to rear the children [M.S.Wills Pec.41/1/39: 1605]. It must be pointed out that he did not take away the customary third if she remarried. Thomas Holloway [21] thinking of his last two children's dowries left part of their share to his wife "soe longe as she liveth and keepeth her selfe sole and unmarried" she may have the profits from leases made in her son Thomas's name and also the use of the silver plate if she pleases and her half of the household goods.

In 1559 a husband who forsaw problems for his wife and settled firmly in her favour was John Sherman of Bourton who made Alys his wife sole executrix "I will my wyfe to have anything concerninge my will and testament without any trouble of my son John or any other in his name or for him and all covenants made before betwixt him and my wife and if he will not so do the said John to have no parte of my goodes but by the oversight of my overseers" [MS. Will Oxon 183: 250].

Most of the family possessions went to the children as soon as their widowed mother, or stepmother remarried, which was necessary when the goods were part of their legacy to start their own households. Was there a clause in the contracts for second marriages that the new wives knew their position right from the start? John Pratt [24] took particular care to safeguard the children from his first marriage. John Hunt [16] did the same. If his second wife remarried she lost the lease and half the goods she shared with the eldest son. The only one at first marriage to do this was Rechard Howse [28]. Even so he only asked the overseers to see the children had their legacies within a year after her marriage, nothing about withdrawing her widow's third, but Alese never did remarry managing very adequately on her own and thereby bettering her sons inheritance which she could not have done after remarriage. Besides she had a good two and a half storey stone house and a farm run with the help of her uncle. A father's anxiety about the eldest son's inheritance, who was by local custom allowed half the lease while younger siblings were looked after and later two thirds of the lease while the widow lived, might come from tales of a son's problems when a stepfather had control. Other second husbands might not farm well reducing the fertility and leaving poor stock as he could not pass it down to his own son. Nehemiah Haslewood as the second husband was an exception and did manage to gain the lease on the Green [14] (p534). A dying husband might be jealous of a second marriage, but his landlord could encourage remarriage to ensure the land was farmed by a man.

In his eightieth year William Lyllee [29] made his will. Here was one case of a man who could read and write, once attending and witnessing wills, but now too poorly to do more than sign with a mark (without the other information he would have gone down as one of the illiterate). Two of their sons had died and the third had married and left. Of their four daughters Joane Lucas [2] and Elizabeth Hall [29] stayed in Cropredy with John and Elizabeth Hall living with the Lyllees. William held back enough land and stock to feed himself and his wife and occasionally took on another cow common. In his will he made his son-in-law Thomas French of Grindon executor perhaps to save any argument between mother and daughter. So far all seemed reasonable, but his bequest to his wife (whose name was Ann but not given), was seemingly a trifle harsh in tone if the "worst" is taken to mean the nastiest instead of I am sure the second best: "my best cowe, my worst bed in the chamber where I usually lye without woolebed, the best coverlett, one blankett, two paire of sheets, one boulster and one pillow. I give her more, one pott, the lesser of the two, one kettle, two coffers which were her owne, two platters and one brasse candlesticke."

Page 107

He added 2 drink barrels and 2 loomes or vats. So he had been practical and made sure she still cooked and kept a cow and presumably there was her share of barley, rye, wheat and pease in the barn as well as hay for the cow. Note those items which they still regard as having been hers after fiftysix years of marriage! So Ann had always retained some hold on the family possessions which is an important insight into their family life when her husband recognised the articles as her contribution.

In Cropredy several widows appear to carry the respect of their husbands to "breed up and educate" the children, and Thomas Toms in 1607 [15] allowed "that Johan my wife shall enjoy that moytie in my tenement as also that half yardland there unto belonginge for and during the yeares of my lease to runne yf she so longe shall live." He wanted her to be executrix and take what benefit from the hovels and scaffolds "as her need shall require" and being used to caring for the stock she would know exactly how much to set aside and leave the rest for their son William, who had the other half yardland. In spite of the fact that the children were over eighteen Johan had more than her third.

All the evidence points to a careful consideration of all the assets and problems that the wife would face and which she would already be aware of, to prevent hardship coming to their children. New research is tending to move away from the theory that people of this period were cold towards their families, for the opposite seems to be true. Nowhere did there appear to be a couple acting just for themselves. If they were harsh it lies hidden. Whipping childen into compliance to prevent them from eternal damnation may have been done only in their love for them, but there is no real evidence in Cropredy even though apprentices and scholars could be whipped. The manorial courts, or their neighbours would surely have protested, if the head of the household had neglected his reponsibility leaving the town to foot the bill. True caring was when Robert Woodrose left all to his loving wife (having seen to their other children by then). John Russell cared for his grandson, but only with the help and charge of his wife whom he trusted to accomplish this. The size of their houses, the possessions they placed there for their wives and children, the careful allocation of fair shares to them all and the occasional sign of endearment and desire to be buried next to their loved ones "as near my beloved and loving husband..." These were just outward expressions which the rest never wrote down expressing them only within the family, yet the wills emphasise the amount of care and attention to detail given by those who still had time to do so even during a sudden illness.

One necessity was the expense made in paying entry fines to enter the lives of their wife and a child onto the copyhold and paying the manor court fees for their copy of the deed. Could not a little be for the love of their companion and partner in life as well as a wish for the descendants to continue to enjoy the benefits of the cottage? The younger the wife and entering the youngest of the children also extended their time. A death needed a heriot as well as a new entry fine and must be saved for in advance by the son or daughter.

The poorer members of the town may have seen much less of their children after fourteen, but their marriages may have been of their own choosing. Children from these families received their legacies after the death of both parents.

Age and Length of Marriage.

A desire to live in a house or cottage of their own could seldom be granted. Out of thirtyseven baptised in Cropredy who succeeded to a site only nine married with both parents dead.

Page 108

This did not guarantee the sole use of the property if there were younger siblings, for the executor being their brother must take on the reponsibility of their legacies and possible marriages. He may never loose the burden of being asked to help sisters and brothers on several occasions, even after they had set up households of their own.

In their larger houses Woodroses [8], Robins [26] and French [4] could split up the property and allocate a hearth to each division of the family. Both might still be part of the same household as Robins and French were, but in Woodrose's case the vicar drew a half line indicating two sections of that house with two heads of household. Some married late because the parents had still to raise the younger children's legacies. The father could not delay this for too long without endangering the length of the son's marriage. Those who delayed into their thirties while waiting for a lease elsewhere, or through the rebuilding programme raised the average age, balancing out those who had the opportunity to marry earlier.

Cropredy apparently lies within the normal average age of marriage. In 1562 the Statute of Artificers prevented very early marriages by setting the age for marriage at twentyone in the country and twentyfour in the larger towns. Nearly a third of the husbandmen married under twentyfive, two out of six of the craftsmen, but no labourer was able to marry young out of ten. Denzie as blacksmith had inherited the copyhold of [13] from his grandfather and could set up his household. Watts [27] must also have qualified as a weaver for he took over after his father died, marrying within three years. Labourers needed to be out to service for a much longer period seldom having a copyhold life on a property. Those who married at twentynine or over were ten husbandmen, half the artisans and five out of the eight labourers.

The average age at marriage of thirtyseven men baptised at Cropredy were as follows:

• 9 married when both parents were dead at the average age of 28.33
• 3 married while both parents lived at the average age of 29.33
• 8 married when only father was alive at the average of 28.37
• 14 married when only mother was alive at the average age of 29.57
• 3 married when their stepmother was alive at the average age of 29.

[The following farmers were used to calculate the average age: [3] T. Devotion 24, [4] Thos, John and Thos French at 22, 21 and 26. [9] Wm and Sol. Howse at 39 and 45. [12] Handley at 31. [14] Ed Lumberds at 28 and 25. [15] Wm Toms at 31. [16] Just and John Hunt at 35 and 25. [23] T. Vaughan at 26. [25] T. and Wm Gybbs at 35 and 22. [26] R. Robins at 23. [28] R. and Thos Howse at 32 and 27. [29] Lyllee at 23. [31] R. Kynd at c20. [32] Wm and Rich. Rede at 35 and 30. [34] A. Watts at 28. These twentythree farmers were married at the average age of 28.6.

The following craftsmen were used: [5] Ant. and R. Hunt at 33 and 28. [13] T. Denzie at 21. [27] T. Watts at 24. [37] T. Breedon at 39 and [46] Ed. Whyte at 33. These six craftsmen married at the average age of 29.6.

The following labourers lived at: [10] Wm and Henry Adkins at 36 and 26. [11] R. Page at 33. [33] J. Truss at 29. [36] V. Huxeley at 31. [46] John Whyte at 25. [47] John and R. Bryan at 29 and 26. These eight labourers married at the average age of 29.37].

There were more baptisms in the farming families upon which to work out the age of marriage than in craftsmen who arrived in the late sixteenth century. The thirtyseven were made up of twentythree farmers in group one, six craftsmen in group two and eight labourers in group three:

Page 109

Who had control in the households with three generations, rather depended upon personalities, second marriages of parents and the ability of the son's new wife to come under her mother-in-law's regime with a good grace. Even into this century there are wives living in pastoral areas who began their married life in a home which gave them no separate sitting room. All they had was their bedchamber. This quite frequently led to the daughter-in-law keeping very quiet and following the routine without protest. Nursing the in-laws and often other siblings or uncles and aunts of the husband could not be avoided as they had some family claim to the household. They brought up their own children, sleeping them in the cockloft. During the depression they must take in summer visitors to sleep in the main chambers and give them the use of the sitting room. All the time still nursing the elderly until the house finally became their own. None of the furnishings ever belonged to the wives for the property had been handed down from father to son for generations. Though the landlord had ceased to allow the occupiers their copyrights and in their own house built by their ancestors they had become tenants, until the estates were finally sold. These conditions were part of the local pattern and not regarded as unusual.

A great many Cropredy marriages stopped abruptly in the first ten years due to the death of the mother in childbirth, then the number of deaths dropped, but rose again in the third decade of marriage, leaving the few remaining couples who enjoyed a long marriage.

While grandparents were available they had a good chance of helping the mother to train the young. Both mothers and daughters would help the old before the teenagers had to go into service leaving mother with servants. Other grandchildren of Dyonice [8] came to the Brasenose farm [8] to help her in addition to her two maids (p521).

When William and Anne Lyllee [28] were married he was an orphan of twentythree. Together they survived fiftysix years of marriage. John and Annes Gybbs [25] had fortytwo years as man and wife. Annes lived on for seven more years. Thomas Toms also began marriage at twentyfive with Johan and for forty years they were together [15]. Richard and Annis Page in their cottage, survived a late marriage at thirtythree, and for forty years they dwelt on the Long Causey [11] to die in 1640. Thomas and Em Devotion [3] both twentyfour at marriage and born in Cropredy lived together for forty years, Em dying three years later. John Clyfton and Abishag had thirtyfive years in their farm cottage [7]. A long term of employment on one farm which may be the reason for calling the close after the Clyfton's.

Who Took Over the Lease?

Did the surviving eldest always inherit the farm or cottage? Out of sixty households about twentyone change hands following a death especially in copyhold cottages. Leases were not always renewed.

Page 110

In the remaining thirtynine the eldest surviving son took over from parents on twentyfive properties. Eight daughter's husbands and six other sons had the rest. Also staying and waiting were seven sons and six girls. Four other girls marry and stay in Cropredy. This meant that just over a sixth of the girls were able to stay. The majority of eldest sons did inherit at Cropredy. Exceptions were Vaughan's [23] youngest son staying on, or next door at [24] where the eldest daughter's husband succeeded, or where the eldest son went to university and the youngest son would have taken over only he died, and a married daughter stayed [26]. At Whytes house the eldest son's wife died leaving two small children and their father vanishes leaving the second brother to the copyhold [46]. Down the street Normans [48] had no son, a daughter inherits and shares the house with the second sister and her husband. The local custom was for the eldest to inherit on farms, but cottagers may enter different children as "lives" on the copyhold and the eldest son was not always the next in line, it could be one of the daughters or even a grandchild [13].

Edward Bokingham [55] had not entered his eldest son as a life on the copyhold, but a younger daughter who married the schoolmaster Rede. Their family holding passed to a son and then a grand-daughter. Huxeley [36] also enters a daughter, and the eldest son, who was thirtyfour when his father died, had long since departed. Was it not possible for the third generation to enter a son? When Elizabeth nee Huxeley's second husband died the family appear not to be able to renew the copyhold and after nearly a hundred years the smallholding changes hands. Truss's [33] smallholding on the B. Manor passed to the two youngest children. His grandmother had hung onto her lifehold until 1609/10 and John was by then seventeen (p411). Maybe he had replaced his grandma on the copyhold as the most likey one to live the longest, unfortunately he died a bachelor aged fortythree and the copyhold goes to Bloxhams.

Gybbs to Tomkins [25], Robins to Blagrave [26], Lyllee to Hall [29] are some of the family names on a farm which change on the marriage of a daughter, while Sutton to Langley [42], Norman to Hudson then Sabin [48], Cox to Arisse [49] and Bokingham to Rede [55] were names of craftsmen who had been entered on the same copyhold following a marriage. Sometimes that married daughter would be the one at home to take care of a bachelor brother [3], an ill sister [42], or an ailing mother. Was this what happened at Lyllees [29] and Mrs Watts [27], so that on any site in Cropredy one of the lives on the copyhold must care for the neediest in each generation.

There was always movement of people to and from Cropredy. Only one child could inherit the lease. The eldest sons of husbandmen left and returned from their various apprenticeships or servants years, but the younger members of the family had no place in the town unless they married one of the leaseholders. How long would a family keep in touch with married siblings once the parents died? Some would have a wide knowledge of surrounding parishes and could probably give the descent of several families who used the same markets.

Mrs Gybbs' [25] mother came from West Adderbury to end her days in Cropredy just as Mrs Holloway's [21] mother, Mrs Gardner came from Thorpe Mandeville, but again we cannot know if the grandchildren had walked over to see the grandparents at all. Only Dyonice and Martha Woodrose mention nieces or grandchildren staying in the house. Evidence of relations supporting each other only comes out when a bachelor helps siblings, nieces and nephews, such as Fremund Denzie who helped Alese Howse [28], or Thomas Howse [9] who remembered them in his will. This Thomas had no doubt been available as an unmarried uncle who remained working the farm with first his step-father and then his eldest brother who was the shepherd.

Page 111

A new bay was apparently built at the north end of the farm to house the various members of the extended family (p524). John French who left his lease to his nephew Anthony Hall [6] was another who without children of his own, thought of his brother's younger sons. Martha Woodhouse [8] in 1639 remembers her nieces in her will.

The wills are the only place which tell us about the wider family, their kinsmen. Arthur Coldwell [50] spread his silver around the family which included sisters and their children, many godchildren related or not, many more "cozens," "sons of my nephew" and "cozens" who were really nephews being sons of his brother. Was he able to do this because he only had one son?

The town was run by men who were seldom related to each other. Only a third of them had relations in one of the other sixty properties and three quarters of these were daughters, sisters or cousins marrying a Cropredy man. Very few of those taking the burden of the town affairs on their shoulders had a close relation to work with.

Contents          Homepage                              (back to top)