This morning I awoke to the sound of chirping and caroling. The local birds were keen to be heard, long after the dawn chorus, a pleasant, relaxing start to the day. However, it didn’t give me the energy to deal with my bed mate. I awoke practically nose to nose with the cat. She’d cried briefly during the night followed by her appearance very close to the book I was reading. I believe in picking my battles and I wasn’t ready to exert myself to battle with the cat and deal with her subsequent attitude. I ignored my better judgment and allowed her to remain. That had happened once before and before too long she’d retreated to her normal position further down the bed. I need to develop my ability to be covertly objectionable so that she moves on her own accord. She held her ground last night and was still there when I left the house about 1pm.
Recently Big Sister and I were talking about community norms. I told her of an odd one I’d read about in a genealogical dictionary. It was about a husband’s ability to dispose of his wife by placing a halter over her head, parading her in a market and selling her to the highest bidder. It was such an odd piece of information that I returned to the book to see what I’d forgotten reading. It was reported that the practice was considered a simple means of ceasing a marriage for poor people and that the woman was usually bought by her lover. I was left wondering how often it occurred against the woman’s will, what
happened if she wanted out of the relationship but had no lover and what happened to the children of the marriage and any produced during the new union. The recorders in parish registers had the habit of stating that a child was born illegitimate, “in fornication” or “base born”. Fathers of illegitimate children were pursued by parish officials to ensure that they supported the children instead of them becoming a claim on the parish. I was so fascinated by a subject that I’d never head of previously that I consulted the internet. Wiki has an extensive discussion of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling_(English_custom) It also mentions that prior to the 1753 Marriage Act, marriage was unregistered, not requiring a formal ceremony and implied by the consent of both parties; the age of consent being 14 and 16. Seems we are lucky in having access to some very early marriage etc records which were not mandatory. That was also mentioned in the genealogical dictionary which contains snippets of all kinds of odd information. A Scrabble player would benefit from reading it as it contains vast quantities of odd words still in use in specialized corners of English usage.
Odd laws, known as the Sumptuary Laws restricted clothing people could wear and were effective for between and one and two hundred years. They were designed to restrict certain kinds of clothing to the nobility. The Oxford Dictionary of Local and Family History mentions one method whereby laws were enforced. It writes of a period during the reign of Queen Elizabeth First,
In 1566 four “four sad and discreet persons” were stationed at the gates of the City of London to watch for people who might be wearing prohibited styles of hose.
It didn’t mention what happened if people were found wearing prohibited styles of stockings. They would have fun trying to enforce similar dress codes today. However, there are always constant expectations about clothing for people in certain circumstances. There are numerous articles about appropriate work wear etc. When I was at boarding school our dress for the end of year balls for senior students was always critically evaluated; modesty being the key concern, while the length of our uniform was always under scrutiny during the revolutionary mini skirt period. Hat and gloves were mandatory when leaving the school premises. Now sounds like the Dark Ages. A little more recently, yet still long ago, when employed as a nurse educator my boss was perturbed that my quality brown leather handbag was not the regulation navy model. Nothing was said about my teaching ability for which I was employed for 40 hours a week, but criticism was made of something I slung over my shoulder at the beginning and end of the day.
I have done a little more research into the family of one of my English great grandfathers. He appears in the 1841 census with a variety of family members, including father, woman I’ve now identified as stepmother (wife number 3), half siblings and two unknown children with the same family name. Not sure I will identify the 2 unknown kids unless I trawl though the families of his father’s numerous siblings. My great grandfather appears in the following census with his stepmother as the only family member. He was reported as a steward and maltser, ie someone who processes grain to become available for the production of alcoholic drinks. A few years later he is in Melbourne selling land and doing land surveys, some of which can be seen online. He was identified as a surveyor during his lifetime in Melbourne. His father had died a few years before the 1851 census. The two half siblings appear living together in another part of England along with one of the unknowns who was 17 at the time. I haven’t been able to find the other one. The half siblings are recorded as “dealers in Berlin wool”, a kind of embroidery although I’m not clear if they were selling the thread or embroidering articles for sale. The eldest male half sibling, living separately in 1841, took up his father’s occupation of land steward. He appears living in a county far away complete with large family, and in one census with retinue of staff which wouldn’t have shamed Downtown Abbey. In the census prior to his death he is 75 years old and living in a smaller house with 3 unmarried children and 1 servant.