Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T08:37:17.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Widows, Property, and Remarriage: Lessons from Glastonbury's Deverill Manors*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Lori A. Gates
Get access

Extract

In an attempt to understand the public and private roles of medieval women in the English countryside, historians have devoted growing attention to widows as villein tenants and transmitters of land in manorial communities. Villein women are often recorded in manorial sources as co-tenants and recipients of property rights on their husbands' deaths. Although in Common Law the widow's share ranged from one-third to one-half of a free husband's lands, the villein widow often received a right to life usage of the whole of the conjugal estate upon her husband's death as her “free bench.” The extensive property-holding rights of these villein widows have made them rich subjects for study of their legal, social, and economic status and activities.

Case studies based on manorial estates, however, have often focused exclusively on the widow as a transmitter of property and have subordinated the study of widows within a framework governed by considerations of land markets and property transmission. Medieval historiography contrasts with studies of early-modern and modern populations that have put elements such as age at widowhood, number of dependents, social status, personal choice in connection with widow remarriage, and provisions for widows at the forefront of study. By connecting work on widows and the landmarket with these other concerns it is possible to study medieval peasant widows within broader comparative perspective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , Spring 1996 , pp. 19 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Professors Judith M Bennett, Kathleen Biddick, and Mavis Mate for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

1 See Bennett, Judith M., Women in the Medieval English Countryside (Oxford, 1987), pp. 145, 146, 279n.10, 280n.15Google Scholar; and Smith, Richard M., “Demographic Developments in Rural England, 1300–48: A Survey,” in Before the Black Death: Studies in the “Crisis” of the Early Fourteenth Century, ed. Campbell, Bruce M.S. (Manchester, 1991), pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

2 See Dupaquier, J., et al., eds., Marriage and Remarriage in Populations of the Past (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; A. Bideau, “A Demographic and Social Analysis of Widowhood and Remarriage,” Journal of Family History 5 (Spring 1980): 28–43; Olwen Hufton, “Women without Men: Widows and Spinsters in Britain and France in the Eighteenth Century, “ Ibid. 9 (Winter 1985): 355–76; John Knodel and Katherine A. Lynch, “The Decline of Remarriage: Evidence from German Village Populations in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Ibid. 10 (Spring 1985): 34–59; Julie Hardwick, “Widowhood and Patriarchy in Seventeenth Century France, “ Journal of Social History (Fall 1992): 133–48.

3 See Hanawalt, Barbara A., “Remarriage as an Option for Urban and Rural Widows in Late Medieval England,” in Wife and Widow in Medieval England, ed. Walker, Sue Sheridan (Ann Arbor, 1993), pp. 141–64Google Scholar, for a recent example.

4 Titow, J. Z., “Some Differences between Manors and their Effects on the Condition of the Peasant in the Thirteenth Century,” Agricultural History Review 10 (1962): 1–13Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., pp. 7–8.

6 See Bennett, Judith M., “Widows in the Medieval English Countryside,” in Upon My Husband's Death: Widows in the Literature and Histories of Medieval Europe, ed. Mirrer, Louise (Ann Arbor, 1992), p. 74Google Scholar; Ravensdale, Jack, “Population Changes and the Transfer of Customary Land on a Cambridgeshire Manor in the Fourteenth Century,” in Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle, ed. Smith, Richard M. (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 215–16Google Scholar; Bennett, , Women, p. 146Google ScholarPubMed; Smith, , “Demographic Developments,” pp. 68–69Google Scholar; Hanawalt, , “Remarriage,” p. 148Google Scholar, for acceptance of Titow's thesis. See also Faith, Rosamond, “Peasant Families and Inheritance Customs in Medieval England,” Agricultural History Review 14 (1966): 77–69Google Scholar; Razi, Zvi, Life, Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish (Cambridge, 1980)Google Scholar; Howell, Cicely, Land, Family and Inheritance in Transition: Kibworth Harcourl 1280–1700 (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar; Campbell, Bruce M.S., “Population Pressure, Inheritance and the Land Market in a Fourteenth-Century Peasant Community,” in Land, Kinship, and Life-Cycle, pp. 197–226Google Scholar; and Smith, Richard M., “Women's Property Rights under Customary Law: Some Developments in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 36 (1986): 165–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Ravensdale, , “Population Changes,” pp. 202–204, 209–210, 215–219Google Scholar.

8 Howell, , Kibworth Harcourt, pp. 43, 232Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 34.

10 Ibid., pp. 255–257.

11 Franklin, Peter, “Peasant Widows' “Liberation” and Remarriage before the Black Death,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 39, 2 (1986): 186–204Google Scholar. See also Hanawalt, “Remarriage;” Bennett, “Widows”; and Hilton, Rodney H., “Women in the Village,” in The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar.

12 Franklin, , “Liberation and Remarriage,” pp. 202–204Google Scholar.

13 Bennett, , “Widows,” p. 103Google ScholarPubMed.

14 Ibid., pp. 74–77.

15 ibid., p. 74.

16 See Gates, Lori A., “A Glastonbury Estate Complex in Wiltshire: Survival and Prosperity on the Medieval Manor, 1280–1380” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1991), pp. 293–312Google Scholar, for a listing of extant court and account rolls for Longbridge and Monkton ca. 1260–1380.

17 Keil, Ian, “The Chamberer of Glastonbury Abbey in the Fourteenth Century,” in Somerset Archeological and Natural History Magazine 107 (1963): 81 n.5Google Scholar; Gates, , “A Glastonbury Estate Complex,” p. 13Google Scholar.

18 The average holding transferred in the Longbridge courts was approximately seven acres compared to over twenty acres at Monkton; approximately twice as many landless laborers (as indicated by annual lists of garciones) could be found at Longbridge; and Longbridge women were more involved in community activities such as property holding, acting in manorial courts, and brewing as will be illustrated in this article.

19 Glastonbury Abbey MS 6368:6. The memorandum is in the hand of the 1333/34 court rolls. Supporting evidence from other manorial records reveals that twelve of the fourteen women whose names are legible in the memorandum were widows. It is possible that the list was drawn up on the occasion of a new abbot (John of Breynton assumed office ca. 1334), but there is no direct evidence relating to the memorandum's occasion, purpose, or use.

20 Cecilia Parker, Cristina Priest, and Edith Woodward all held property acquired as widows until their own deaths; Agnes Rochel received property in 1329, transferred one holding to a son in 1333, and held the other until her death in 1348; and Matilda Uppehulle was widowed in 1327, surrendered one cotset to Edward Skiller in 1329, and retained another until her demise in 1349. The exception was Edith Herl who married Robert Pickhod in 1335 and transferred her quartervirgate holding to him at the same time for a 66s 8d entry fine.

21 Titow, , “Some Differences,” pp. 6–7Google Scholar, asserts the existence of seignorial pressure for widows to remarry on “non-colonizing” manors; while Franklin maintains that ecclesiastics certainly pressured widows with property to remarry and that elsewhere more “covert” pressure existed (“Liberation and Remarriage,” pp. 188, 195, 203).

22 Study of the Monkton group is complicated by a lack of complete records of property transactions regarding the 1334 tenants. However, Joanna AtteMulle (the 1334 widow with the most property) twice remarried after her initial widowhood, Agnes Richer assumed a virgate and messuage in 1333 and remarried in 1334, and Alice Muleward entered three-fourths of a virgate in 1333 and she does not appear in manorial records after 1334.

23 Gates, , “A Glastonbury Estate Complex,” pp. 110–11Google Scholar.

24 Glastonbury Abbey MSS 9633:5, 6367:5, 6369:4, 9634:4, 10631:3v, 6369:4v, 6366:3, 6369:6. This evidence contrasts with Franklin ("Liberation and Remarriage,” p. 196) who asserts that widows with property rarely were involved in disputes such as trespass and the raising of the hue and cry against males, although Bennett (“Widows,” pp. 72–73) and Franklin (ibid., pp. 195–96) make strong cases for the increased public role of propertied widows.

25 Goldberg, P. J. P., Women, Work, and Life-Cycle in a Medieval Economy: Women in York and Yorkshire c. 1300–1520 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 141–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graham, H., “‘A Women's Work…’: Labour and Gender in the Medieval Countryside,” in Woman is a Worthy Wight: Women in English Society c. 1200–1500, ed. Goldberg, P. J. P. (Stroud, U.K., 1992), pp. 126–48Google Scholar; Bennett, Judith M., “The Village Ale Wife: Women and Brewing in Fourteenth-Century England,” in Women and Work in Preindustrial Europe, ed. Hanawalt, Barbara (Bloomington, 1986), pp. 22–25Google Scholar.

26 These women of Longbridge were not part of a brewing industry dominated by identifiable ale-wives. Throughout the fourteenth century women composed only a minority of named brewers. Although it has been pointed out (Graham, “Labour and Gender;” Goldberg, , Women, Work, and Life-Style, pp. 141–42Google Scholar) that names recorded for brewing on court rolls might not correspond to the performer of the activity, brewing in Longbridge appears to have been not a gender-specific but a household activity. On the death of the male household head, the name attached to his brewing infractions becomes that of his successor, whether widow or son.

27 Glastonbury Abbey MS 10631:6.

28 Bennett, , “Ale-Wife,” pp. 24–25, 29Google Scholar, argues that widows had difficulty maintaining their places in the village ale-brewing industry achieved as wives and that women, despite the fact they dominated the industry, were denied positions of village authority such as that of an ale taster.

29 153 of 216 transactions. Cf. the manors of Brigstock, Northamptonshire where women were involved in one out of every five property transactions (Bennett, , Women, p. 33Google ScholarPubMed) and Thornbury, Gloucestershire where women composed one-sixth of that manor's tenants (Franklin, , “Liberation and Remarriage,” p. 188Google Scholar).

30 Only eighteen of these involved women as co-tenants. Cf. Thornbury where women were entrants in fifty-eight percent of post-mortem transfers (Franklin, , “Liberation and Remarriage,” p. 198Google Scholar) and Brigstock where widows or their new husbands accounted for fifty-eight percent of entrants ca. 1328–1348 (Bennett, , Women, p. 34)Google ScholarPubMed.

31 Graham, , “Labour and Gender,” pp. 141–43Google Scholar, suggests that women were cited when they appeared as heads of households.

32 Joanna AtteMulle appeared twice in 1331 in regards to a suit brought against her by Edith Goldhaneck and others, and Alice Wither raised the hue and cry against William le Hayward in 1337 for trespass.

33 Glastonbury Abbey MS 6367:7v. “Johanna Atte Mulle defamata est de carnalis copulas habitus cum Willelmo de Wyly, Edmundo atte Lee & aliis dicebant super sacramentum suum quod ipsa inde falso defamata est per Johanem le Brock et [blank] uxorem suis & Editham Goldhaneck. Et quia ob defamaciam praedictam nullus curat [sic] ad earn ingressiam nee finem pro tenemento suo.…”

34 Alice Wither, Alice Faber, and Alice Muleward were never identified as brewsters; Edith Goldhaneck was assessed on only one occasion; Agnes Richer was amerced twice; but Joanna AtteMulle broke the assize four times (once each in 1331 and 1332, and twice in 1333) and only her husband was assessed for major brewing in the community before his death.

35 Gates, , “A Glastonbury Estate Complex,” p. 141Google Scholar. Thirty women and 158 men were named for brewing ca. 1280 to 1380 at Monkton.

36 Manorial documents include no references to assarting on either manor in the half century before the Black Death. In addition, Longbridge also exhibited other characteristics identified by Titow (“Some Differences,” pp. 3–4) as signs of land shortage such as a preponderance of transactions involving small holdings and significant numbers of landless laborers in the village.

37 Howell, (Kibworth Harcourt, p. 34Google Scholar) asserts a connection between an excess of male labor and low levels of widow remarriage.

38 Gates, , “A Glastonbury Estate Complex,” pp. 21–22, 52–56Google Scholar.

39 Franklin (“Liberation and Remarriage,” p. 195) suggests that determining the influence of age and dependents on remarriage in medieval agrarian communities would be impossible, but historians in various case studies have recently attempted to approach these very elements (see Hanawalt, “Remarriage,” for a discussion of some results).

40 Howell, , Kibworth Harcourt, pp. 255–57Google Scholar.

41 While findings regarding age at property acquisition and its relationship to age at marriage remain largely speculative, consensus seems to exist on the connection of property acquisition and marriage with an age of marriage for medieval English peasants in the late teens or early twenties. Bennett, , Women, pp. 71–73Google ScholarPubMed; Razi, , Marriage and Death, pp. 60–64Google Scholar; Goldberg, , Women, Work, and Life-Cycle, pp. 8–10, 229–30Google Scholar; Smith, Richard M., “Some Issues Concerning Families and their Property in Rural England 1250–1800,” in Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle, pp. 1–86Google Scholar.

42 At Longbridge Cristina Priest had a son who was first mentioned in 1312, Agnes Rochel's two sons entered her holding on her death in 1348, and Cecilia Parker's land was entered by John Parker (possibly her son and heir) in 1340; while at Monkton Agnes and Stephen Richer had at least two children: Stephen, who was born ca. 1308 and died in 1334, and John who became co-tenant with Agnes' second husband when she remarried in 1334.